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

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

From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 12:52:29 +0000
Cc: "public-ldp@w3.org" <public-ldp@w3.org>
Message-Id: <7CEAB195-A5FC-44F8-AC40-1766434DF8F7@cyganiak.de>
To: Martynas Jusevičius <martynas@graphity.org>
On 22 Mar 2013, at 12:36, Martynas Jusevičius <martynas@graphity.org> wrote:
> 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.

I don't disagree with any of this. You asked if the triple above is true. I confirmed that it is trivially true.

>>> 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?

I cannot think of any use case for the class of non-LDPRs. You seem to think that there is a use case for it, that's why I asked you to state the use case.

> 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.?

Of course, but why should it include ldp:NonLDPR?

> And if LDPRs and non-LDPRs are disjoint, why not make it explicit as
> well?

Of course LDPRs and non-LDPRs are disjoint. Again, that's trivially true, it's a tautology. X and non-X are disjoint regardless of what X is. I don't see the point in explicitly stating trivially true facts.

Received on Friday, 22 March 2013 12:52:58 UTC

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