W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ldp@w3.org > March 2013

Re: Section 4: LDPR/non-LDPR formal definitions

From: Martynas Jusevičius <martynas@graphity.org>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 14:36:24 +0200
Message-ID: <CAE35Vmzo7KbUvrxcH7UGO_b=mtBx-O807XzQ=azT++gsEJmEQg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Cc: "public-ldp@w3.org" <public-ldp@w3.org>
On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 1:52 PM, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de> wrote:
> On 22 Mar 2013, at 10:27, Martynas Jusevičius <martynas@graphity.org> wrote:
>> Section 4 defines LDPRs and non-LDPRs without specifying formally how
>> they relate to RDF resources. Is the following true?
>>  ldp:Resource rdfs:subClassOf rdfs:Resource .
> Everything is a resource, so this triple is trivially true.

Everything is a resource, but not everything can implement HTTP
methods? I would assume LDPR is an information resource, a subset of
RDF resources. Real-world resources (e.g. persons) can be described by
RDF, but can they be Linked Data?

So I think ldp:Resource should be a more like foaf:Document than rdfs:Resource.

>> If not, what explicit relationship is there?
>> Also, what is the RDFS/OWL definition of non-LDPRs?
> I don't understand the point of this question. Why talk about non-LDPRs at all? And why would an RDFS/OWL definition be useful?

Why wouldn't RDFS/OWL definition be useful? There is an ldp: namespace
and seems like there is an ontology also, why shouldn't it include a
definition of ldp:Resource alongside of ldp:Container, ldp:Page etc.?
And if LDPRs and non-LDPRs are disjoint, why not make it explicit as
Received on Friday, 22 March 2013 12:36:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:03:10 UTC