Re: Editors' proposal for membership predicate names

Hi Roger,

I see there is inconsistency here.  I've adjusted the terminology section.

Thanks,
- Steve Speicher


On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 9:10 AM, Roger Menday
<Roger.Menday@uk.fujitsu.com>wrote:

>
> hi Steve,
>
> Thanks for your email.
>
> Your proposal for 6.3.1 and 6.3.2 makes sense to me.
> 6.3.2 essentially covers the Basic Container case ..
>
> I do see this issue in a number of places. For example, in the Terminology
> section, it defines "Membership predicate: The predicate of all
> a LDPC's membership triples.".
>
> In my mind, the membershipTriples are part of the LDP-RS and containment
> triples are part of the LDPC, and so, the definition above should say
> LDP-RS.
>
> (?)
>
> Roger
>
>
>
> On 20 Feb 2014, at 18:21, Steve Speicher wrote:
>
>
>
> - Steve Speicher
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 11:58 AM, Steve Speicher <sspeiche@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 11:03 AM, Roger Menday <
>> roger.menday@uk.fujitsu.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> (snip)
>
>>
>>> 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)
>>
>
> Correction.  6.3.1 is the HTTP GET section in LDP Containers [1].  I
> believe this is a place where we didn't properly catch a change for the new
> resolution.
>
> Perhaps rewritten as 2 rules such:
> [[
> 6.3.1 The representation of a LDPC MUST include the containment triples.
>
> 6.3.2 The representation of a LDPC MUST include the  membership triples
> following if the membership-constant-URI is the LDPC itself. (rest of
> previous 6.3.1)
> ]]
>
> [1] - https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/default/ldp.html#ldpc-HTTP_GET
>
>  - Steve
>
> (snip)
>
>
>