Re: the state of ldp-patch, and a procedural proposal

Hi guys,

I'm bringing here some parts of a discussion that happened on
public-ldp-patch@w3.org, as Andy brought my attention on 5.2.1 from
the LDP spec.

On 10/18/2013 12:20 PM, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> On 18/10/13 16:46, Alexandre Bertails wrote:
>> On 10/18/2013 11:05 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>>  > On 18/10/13 15:24, Alexandre Bertails wrote:
>>  >> On 10/18/2013 10:13 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>>  >>> On 18/10/13 03:57, Alexandre Bertails wrote:
>>  >>>
>>  >>>> General remark: Linked Data (in LDP) is different from general RDF:
>>  >>>> the data lives in "small" HTTP documents, not in "big" RDF store.
>>  >>>
>>  >>> Hmm - collections have the potential to be large and, in general,
>>  >>> planning on "small" seems to fail the test of real use!
>>  >>
>>  >> Collections as in LDPC, yes, that is true. I was talking about LDPRs.
>>  >
>>  > If LDPC are a subclass of LDPR ... :-)
>>
>> It's true that the ontology says so, but I don't think that there is a
>> subtyping relationship in practice. The spec itself does not define an
>> LDPC as a refinement for an LDPR: it discriminates the two cases.
>
> In the ED:
> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/default/ldp.html#ldpc-general
> 5.2.1
> """
> A Linked Data Platform Container MUST also be a conforming Linked Data
> Platform Resource.
> """

So the spec does define a subtype relationship explicitly, and I do
remember old discussions about that... But I don't see what purpose
that rule actually serves. And I fail to understand what it means to
comply with 5.2.1.

Under 5.2.1, I would expect the semantics for LDPC to be a refinement
of the semantics for LDPR. Instead, I see some conflicts, a big one
being PUT for example. Maybe the initial intent became wrong while the
semantics of LDPR and LDPC diverged?

Can somebody tell me why this constraint was added?
What does it mean exactly?
Is it still valid?
Can it be removed? (along with [[ ldp:Container rdfs:subClassOf 
ldp:Resource ]])

Alexandre.

> (whether this is a good idea in the case of patch is an interesting
> question)
>
>      Andy
>
>

Received on Friday, 18 October 2013 19:23:49 UTC