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

Re: ISSUE-79 ldp:contains

From: John Arwe <johnarwe@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 10:37:05 -0400
To: "public-ldp-wg@w3.org" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF49E6F495.5E5095B4-ON85257B7F.004F426C-85257B7F.00504E57@us.ibm.com>
> That's fine. Many clients may create a member and just go on from 
> there, without ever doing a GET on the LDPC again.

Not what I said.  Most of my clients do the opposite ... only ever 
enumerate the container's members, never create.  Might update members 
already listed.


> 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. 

Not ok making this the default.
I care much more about addressing the scenarios I see as most common, 
which is clients enumerating members.

Maybe turning this around will be informative: what fails if there is no 
relation specifically saying which subset of the container's members 
(membership triples as defined in the spec) also belong to the subset of 
those *created by* the container?  What can't clients do?

Best Regards, John

Voice US 845-435-9470  BluePages
Tivoli OSLC Lead - Show me the Scenario
Received on Monday, 3 June 2013 14:37:40 UTC

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