Re: Feedback on Henry's proposal for ISSUE-34

On 1/20/13 5:07 AM, Henry Story wrote:
> Having written this it is also be possible to make the distinction I 
> wanted
> to make without the use of the notions of ldpx:contains or ldpx:member
> relation, by simply defining an ldp:Container this way:
>
> @prefix ldp: <http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#>.
> @prefix rdf: <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#> .
> @prefix rdfs: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#> .
> @prefix vs: <http://www.w3.org/2003/06/sw-vocab-status/ns#> .
>
>
> ldp:Container a rdf:Class;
>      rdfs:note """
>       Deleting a Container with an HTTP DELETE method call MUST delete all its members.
>         More precisely: for a container with URI Uc, let the set of its contents S, be all
>          the results given by the query
>
>             SELECT ?c
>             WHERE {  ?container a ldp:Container;
>                                rdfs:member ?c . }
>
>        where ?container is bound to Uc. Then deleting the resource named by Uc should delete all
>        the resources named in the set S .
>        Furthermore deleting any resource ?r in the container ?c, such that
>            ASK { ?c rdfs:member ?r } .
>        MUST remove the element R from the container C.
>      """;
>      vs:term_status "unstable";
>      rdfs:subClassOf ldp:Collection .
>
> ldp:Aggregation a rdf:Class;
>      rdfs:note """
>         Creating,  Updating or Deleting an Aggregation does not have any necessary implication as to
>         the state of its rdfs:member object.   This is very different to an ldp:Container.
>         Similarly deleting updating or altering resources that are members of an ldp:Aggregtion
>         does not have any required implication on an ldp:Aggregation.
>      """ ;
>      vs:term_status "unstable";
>      rdfs:subClassOf ldp:Collection.
>
> ldp:Collection a rdf:Class;
>     vs:term_status "unstable";
>     rdfs:note """
>     Information Resources ( things that one can interact with HTTP verbs on the Web ) that can have sets
>     of rdfs:member and that are defined by the LDP Spec.
>      """ .
>
> As this was meant to be a simple proposal, I have simplified 
> everything on
> the page, now, as I realise that I was adding more new elements than
> I had intended to.
>
> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Issue-34_-_Aggregation:_simple_proposal
>
> So now we should have something that does not really depart at all 
> from the
> spec, other than by introducing the class ldp:Aggregation .
>
> Henry

+1

This model is also easily integrated with orthogonal efforts such as 
SIOC and I suspect many others. The goal should always be about thinking 
in terms of puzzle pieces that are ultimately connectable with others is 
the massive jigsaw puzzle that is the World Wide Web.

Great demonstration of how we can cut to the chase without endless 
confusion.

-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen