Re: ISSUE-71: second bug tracking example

> Let us say that since they allow relations to be added to any 
> resource, the fact that they can also
> add relations to the current LDPC is not of their essence. 

I want to be crystal clear what it is I might be agreeing to:  when you 
talk about 'any resource', are you referring to some of the other "pending 
drafting" resolutions that move function from LDP*C*s to LDP*R*s?  If so, 
which one(s)?

"added" will just bring us back to the "it's not just about create" 
discussion.  And they're not "allowing" anything that I can see (but 
please remind me if I'm forgetting something), they're informing clients 
about certain specific side effects (in the case of create/delete) and how 
to enumerate members (all cases, including read-only).  I think their 
"relationship" to the LDPC (particular side effect, if you tilt your head 
the other way) is "of their essence" by my understanding of those words.


> > The ldp:memberXXX relations would probably best be renamed
> don't necessarily have anything to do with rdf:member. So naming them 
that

That's cognitively interesting.  I see you stop reading after member.  I 
stop after 4 additional letters (-shipXXX).  See the world in a grain of 
sand.



Best Regards, John

Voice US 845-435-9470  BluePages
Tivoli OSLC Lead - Show me the Scenario