Re: Editors' proposal for membership predicate names

On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 11:03 AM, Roger Menday
<roger.menday@uk.fujitsu.com>wrote:

>
>
> p.s. I'm probably going LDPcrazy, but in the Terminology section of the
> spec draft it says for "Membership Triples" that it is "a set of triples in
> an LDPC's state that lists its members" ... Shouldn't this be LDPR .. ?
>
>
> Any reaction ??
>
>
> So, I think that the membership triples are in the *LDPR* state ... (?)
>

Well actually, they are in the  LDP-RR (now LDP RDF Source) state.


>
>
> Here is another example from the spec.
>
> "6.3.1 The representation of a LDPC must contain a set of membership
> triples following one of the consistent patterns from that definition."
>
> I think in this case this should be containment triples ...
>

6.3.1 seems right to me, containment triple pattern is fixed as: (LDPC,
ldp:contains, LDPR)

- Steve


>
> Roger
>
>
>
>
> On 14 Feb 2014, at 16:54, Steve Speicher wrote:
>
> Based on discussions on at last couple of WG meetings, it was discussed
> that the editors would come up with a proposal for better membership
> predicate names as the previous ones are a little dated with some of the
> recent terminology and concepts [1] .  Since we are low on time, the idea
> is to get a quick thumbs up/down on it at the call on Monday [2].
>
> Here are the proposed changes:
>
> ldp:containerResource    => ldp:membershipResource
>
> ldp:containsRelation        => ldp:hasMemberRelation
>
> ldp:containedByRelation => ldp:isMemberOfRelation
>
> [1] - https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/default/ldp.html#terms
> [2] - http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2014.02.17
>
> Regards,
> Steve Speicher
>
>
>
>