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

Re: ISSUE-79 ldp:contains

From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 07:27:38 +0200
Cc: "public-ldp-wg@w3.org" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <253548AE-B6BF-4587-B2A0-5CD485E6655A@bblfish.net>
To: John Arwe <johnarwe@us.ibm.com>

On 3 Jun 2013, at 06:53, John Arwe <johnarwe@us.ibm.com> wrote:

> Most (vast majority) of my clients *do not care* if a member was created by the container or are simply listed as members but exist independently (quite possibly existing prior to the container itself).  It's a completely irrelevant (to those clients) who consider "who created it" to be an implementation detail.  They are going to want to update the members (hence the r/w part), for sure. 

That's fine. Many clients may create a member and just go on from there, without ever doing a GET on the LDPC again.

> 
> The way the spec is written reflects this notion of membership.  I don't care personally if you wish to add a contains relation.  For the implementations of interest to me it is, so far, completely extraneous but I have no trouble imagining a place for it. 

Ok, so we can settle on replacing the text in the spec with ldp:contains then?
In the end if you want to add different relations to your LDPC you can of course use different relations.
So this would be perfectly ok:

<> a ldp:Container;
   ldp:contains <member>;
   rdf:member <http://ibm.com/cart/23> .

It helps us if the ldp:contains relation is the default predicate in our spec, because this is the one 
most closely related to the protocol. 

> 
> I can tell at this point that anything else I would say falls on deaf ears, so </end> 
> 
> Best Regards, John
> 
> Voice US 845-435-9470  BluePages 
> Tivoli OSLC Lead - Show me the Scenario 
> 
> 

Social Web Architect
http://bblfish.net/
Received on Monday, 3 June 2013 05:28:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:11:51 UTC