Wouter Termont

Thank you for adding that nuanced background, @kjetilk! As action following on todays CG meeting, I hereby do a call specifically for Use Cases concerning the hierarchical nature of Solid...

Like I have already indicated in an earlier comment, that would also be my preference at this point, but only under the condition that we have it for all resources...

Thanks for the valuable additions, @elf-pavlik! Could you elaborate on the following? > [W]e want the ability to move the resource in the hierarchy without changing its URL. What would...

Great points! Thanks for clarifying 👍

@elf-pavlik, I want to come back on those two last points you made. --- > I think Solid Protocol shouldn't force /.well-known/ to be managed as contained in the storage...

Given the long history of this decision, the clear advantages, and few disadvantages, I believe we should really move this forward and close the issue, possibly creating new issues regarding...

> I would like to evaluate LINK and UNLINK HTTP methods 👀 looking that up ... > I think we should at least address the specific case of auxiliary resources....

@damooo, I did not misunderstand. As I pointed out in my [very first comment](https://github.com/solid/specification/issues/505#issuecomment-1623740389), the Solid protocol _does_ [state](https://solidproject.org/TR/protocol#resource-containment) that "[t]here is a 1-1 correspondence between containment triples and relative...

> > [t]here is a 1-1 correspondence between containment triples and relative reference within the path name hierarchy." > > That expresses `necessary` condition for uri semantics. That is, at...

As I already said, we are not disagreeing on the implicit premise of existence of the resource. I merely claim that applications (at least those following the RESTful Way) always...