Fwd: Aggregation: simple proposal

missed sending to list, apologies

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Steve Speicher <sspeiche@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 4:53 PM
Subject: Re: Aggregation: simple proposal
To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>


On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 5:14 AM, Andy Seaborne
<andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com> wrote:
> Henry - excellent, real examples.
>
> There are certainly lots of ways to do general aggregation because, at some
> level, linking to another resource is "aggregation".
>
> This is the sort of thing that would go well in a primer to explain good
> practice so that there is some commonality that clients can exploit in
> working with different LDP instances.
>
> To draw up consequences of Henry's default suggestion:
>
> 1/ No ordering -- if it's authors of a paper or a playlist, order matters.
> Also for paging, some kind of ordering for stable pages may be required.
>
> (digression below)
>
> 2/ No duplicates -- sometimes it matters.
>
> 3/ These are equivalent to untyped links.
>
>         Andy
>
> Digression:
>
> The LDP-C text describes the use of an auxiliary property (o:value in
> example 3) for a semantic ordering of a container although it's not
> completely deterministic (what is two o:value are the same?)
>

See semantics of SPARQL orderBy per the spec, tried not to define new
semantics or model, just in terms of one that already exists and most
likely be used.

> At a minimum this needs to be declared:
>
> <http://example.org/netWorth/nw1/assetContainer>
>   ldp:orderingPredicate o:value
>
> but what I see as happening is that yet another
> container/collection/aggregation construct is being invented for RDF. Each
> time this happens there is a belief "it's better" but really "its better for
> some cases and not for others."
>

Sort of but sort of not.  Since the ordering information is part of
the data already, we are just listing it out as which predicate is
being used.

> IBM - what alternatives were considered for containership?
>

(Assume you are wanting the background on the member submission on this)

It would be hard for me to summarize the many discussions that
occurred around this, especially in this email thread.  We were also
watching RDF WG was considering in this area ISSUE-24
http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/24

Therefore there didn't appear to be a clear construct that we should
use directly or augment.

...snip...

--
- Steve Speicher


--
- Steve

Received on Friday, 4 January 2013 21:55:52 UTC