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

ldp:contains was: linking from resource -> container ..

From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2013 15:18:27 +0100
Cc: Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com>, "public-ldp-wg@w3.org Working Group" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <00784477-96BA-4184-90E5-EFAB8F50AE5F@bblfish.net>
To: Roger Menday <roger.menday@uk.fujitsu.com>

On 2 Mar 2013, at 00:42, Roger Menday <roger.menday@uk.fujitsu.com> wrote:

> Arnaud, 
>> While it is tempting to want to have "back links" - links from member resources to the containers they are member of - because it certainly can be convenient, we can't possibly require that of all implementations. 
> Based on ex.2 in the spec: I believe that from a networth resource, it must be possible to discover the container(s) that a client then needs to interact with to manage its assets and liabilities details. 

It seems to me that this and a number of other issues point to the notion that we need 
an ldp:contains relation from container to the contained element.

The container would be written like this:

<> a ldp:Container;
     ldp:contains <card>;
     rdf:member <../other/somethingelse> .

And the content could if it wanted to then have an ldp:contains relation back. Eg
<card> could say:

<.> ldp:contains <> .
<> a foaf:PersonalProfileDocument;
     foaf:primaryTopic <#i> .

<#i> foaf:name "Arnaud" .

No need to invent a new relation from content back to container. We can use the
same relation in both cases.

> I don't understand why you consider this to be a "back link" ?
> Roger
>> <> 
>>   a ldp:Container; 
>>   ldp:membershipSubject <http://example.org/netWorth/nw1>; 
>>   ldp:membershipPredicate o:asset. 
>> <http://example.org/netWorth/nw1> 
>>   a o:NetWorth; 
>>   o:asset <a1>, <a2>. 

Social Web Architect

Received on Monday, 4 March 2013 14:19:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:11:46 UTC