W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ldp-wg@w3.org > February 2013

Re: ISSUE-37 WAS:Proposal for containers

From: Raúl García Castro <rgarcia@fi.upm.es>
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2013 08:52:28 +0100
Message-ID: <510B743C.10308@fi.upm.es>
To: Steve Battle <steve.battle@sysemia.co.uk>
CC: Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com>, "public-ldp-wg@w3.org" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
El 31/01/13 23:44, Steve Battle escribió:
>
> On 31 Jan 2013, at 22:05, Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com
> <mailto:lehors@us.ibm.com>> wrote:
>
>> Steve Battle <steve.battle@sysemia.co.uk
>> <mailto:steve.battle@sysemia.co.uk>> wrote on 01/31/2013 12:10:06 PM:
>>
>> > From: Steve Battle <steve.battle@sysemia.co.uk
>> <mailto:steve.battle@sysemia.co.uk>>
>> > To: Arnaud Le Hors/Cupertino/IBM@IBMUS, "public-ldp-wg@w3.org
>> <mailto:public-ldp-wg@w3.org>"
>> > <public-ldp-wg@w3.org <mailto:public-ldp-wg@w3.org>>,
>> > Date: 01/31/2013 12:11 PM
>> > Subject: Re: ISSUE-37 WAS:Proposal for containers
>> >
>> > On 31 Jan 2013, at 19:54, Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com
>> <mailto:lehors@us.ibm.com>> wrote:
>> >
>> > One argument against introducing ldp:contains or any such new
>> > predicate is that we want to encourage reuse and this doesn't.
>> > I'm not really sure this is independent of ISSUE-37. As the draft
>> > stands it only supports composition and if that's all we end up with
>> > there won't be any confusion about what rdfs:member is about, will
>> there?
>> >
>> > My understanding is that the spec being silent on aggregation only
>> > means that it places no constraints on the way that users are able
>> > to create their own RDF aggregations.
>>
>> Indeed.
>>
>> > Therefore, there is every chance that the existing composition model
>> > can be confused with user aggregation unless it introduces its own
>> > vocabulary as proposed.
>>
>> Since one can choose to use different predicates to indicate
>> membership in a container people can't - and shouldn't! - rely on the
>> predicate being used to figure out whether they are dealing with an
>> LDPC or not. They need to look at whether the resource is of class
>> ldp:Container.
>
> I agree with you if the issue is that of determining the resource type.
> However, this proposal addresses a different concern, i.e. that if
> predicates like rdfs:member are used for composition then this makes it
> difficult to distinguish between a resource POSTed to the container (see
> Ashok's proposal item B.), and a resource linked to the container using
> rdfs:member (see Ashok's proposal item F.).
>
> I would like to propose this a way to ensure that composition and
> aggregation remain orthogonal.

Yes, that's the main point. If we use rdfs:member as a default container 
membership property, we are not allowing anyone to post resources whose 
representation includes rdfs:member and we do not allow servers to 
return a representation of a resource (that is not a container) using 
rdfs:member.

Or we can allow it and make the implementation of clients and servers 
much more costly.

-- 

Dr. Raúl García Castro
http://delicias.dia.fi.upm.es/~rgarcia/

Ontology Engineering Group
Departamento de Inteligencia Artificial
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid
Campus de Montegancedo, s/n - Boadilla del Monte - 28660 Madrid
Phone: +34 91 336 36 70 - Fax: +34 91 352 48 19
Received on Friday, 1 February 2013 07:52:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 9 May 2013 13:44:29 UTC