Proposal to close ISSUE-59 (recursive-delete): Reconsider usage of Aggregate/Composite construct to get predictable container delete behavior

Hi all,
I would really like us get over that one sooner rather than later so based 
on the previous discussions and what I've heard from everyone I'd like to 
make the following proposal to close issue-59:

Close Issue-59 per Steve's suggestion (see 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013Apr/0018.html ):

1. remove the two types of container AggregateContainer and 
CompositeContainter, leaving the only kind of container to be 
ldp:Container

2. specify that on deleting a container LDP servers MUST delete the 
container and MAY delete member resources (typically to satisfy internal 
requirements).

So if I have:

<> a ldp:Container;
   rdfs:member <a>.

and I create <b> using POST to the container, I end up with:

<> a ldp:Container;
   rdfs:member <a>, <b>.

When I delete the container, the container gets deleted, and <a> and <b> 
MAY get deleted.

3. Defer adding an operation that let's a client request a recursive 
delete to a future version of LDP, and do one of the following:
-------------

If people can't live with the uncertainty regarding the delete behavior we 
could go with the following alternative, inspired by Henry's proposal 
around ldp:contains:

1. remove the two types of container AggregateContainer and 
CompositeContainter, leaving the only kind of container to be 
ldp:Container

2. add that on creating a new member resource using POST, LDP servers 
SHOULD add a triple a la : <> ldp:contains <newly_created_resource> if the 
resource will be deleted when the container is deleted. Note that this is 
in addition to adding the appropriate ldp:membershipPredicate or 
ldp:membershipPredicateInverse triple to the container representation as 
currently required.

3. specify that on deleting a container LDP servers MUST delete the 
container and member resources listed as contained via ldp:contains, and 
MAY delete other member resources (typically to satisfy internal 
requirements).

So if I have:

<> a ldp:Container;
   rdfs:member <a>.

and I create <b> using POST to the container, I end up with:

<> a ldp:Container;
   rdfs:member <a>, <b>;
   ldp:contains <b>.

When I delete the container, both the container and <b> get deleted. <a> 
MAY be deleted.

4. Defer adding an operation that let's a client request a recursive 
delete to a future version of LDP, and do one of the following:
-------------

Regards.
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Software Standards Architect - IBM Software Group