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

Re: Issue-34 Back_to_Basics proposal

From: Roger Menday <roger.menday@uk.fujitsu.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 23:34:16 +0000
CC: "public-ldp-wg@w3.org Working Group" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <E388907D-0F1F-4B0F-8125-1CD159F33F1F@uk.fujitsu.com>
To: John Arwe <johnarwe@us.ibm.com>

hi John, 

>> > 
>> > p.s. In the spec, why is only links from the container to the LDPR ?
>> > I think the links in the other direction are the more important ones. 
>> Member-collection links can be more important, I think it just depends on what your favorite app happens to be.  The submission was trying to enable a very broad range of apps,
>> including those for example where the members have no idea what "collections" link to them.
>>  So again, from an interaction model standpoint, it seemed minimally necessary to define how a client navigates from collection to its members.  The (implicit) assumption was that some additional app-specific ontology would be layered on top to cover additional cases... and if those turn out to be widely interesting enough, those might even find their way into later specs layered on top of LDP.  There are lots of other groups doing discipline/app-specific ontologies, my goal certainly would be to enable re-use of all that existing work.

Looking at example 2 in the spec:

   a ldp:Container;
   ldp:membershipSubject <http://example.org/netWorth/nw1>;
   ldp:membershipPredicate o:asset.

   a o:NetWorth;
   o:asset <a1>, <a2>.

The /nw1 resource is the "informational resource" - the one which might be written on the side of a bus. Given only this URL, I need to know the address of the containers which are then used to manage assets and liabilities.


Received on Wednesday, 27 February 2013 23:35:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:11:45 UTC