W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ldp-wg@w3.org > February 2014

Editors' proposal for types of containers

From: Steve Speicher <sspeiche@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 16:16:21 -0500
Message-ID: <CAOUJ7JrPyN_8R1NkJbx+ZkdheihM8CF1XomYQg4J6ciEmOkuSQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "public-ldp-wg@w3.org" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
 Last meeting [1] we had a discussion and some proposals for names of the
various types of containers [2].

Proposed new names for these types of LDPCs:

LDP Basic Container (LDP-BC) => no change

LDP Direct Container (LDP-DC) => no change

LDP Indirect Container (LDP-IC) => LDP Container (LDPC), combine with LDPC

Additionally (using the new terminology), a proposal to express the class
hierarchy would be: (removing LDP prefixes, insert your own rdfs:subClassOf
if it helps)

Resource
   +- NR
   +- RS
       +- Container
           +- DC
              +- BC

Since a LDP-DC is just a refinement of LDPC, limiting the inserted content
relationship ...and therefore membership is more direct

Since a LDP-BC is just a refinement of LDP-DC, limiting the member resource
and membership triples ...and therefore the capabilities are fairly basic
compared to others.  Called it constant or fixed seemed to imply other
limitations that aren't true.

I can also draw (if needed) a simple Venn diagram that shows this
progression of capabilities and constraints.

[1] - http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/ldp/2014-02-10
[2] - https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/default/ldp.html#terms

Warmest regards,
Steve Speicher
Received on Friday, 14 February 2014 21:16:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 14 February 2014 21:16:49 UTC