- From: Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org>
- Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 17:20:56 +0100
- To: Alexandre Bertails <bertails@w3.org>, public-ldp-patch@w3.org
On 18/10/13 16:46, Alexandre Bertails wrote: > On 10/18/2013 11:05 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote: > > On 18/10/13 15:24, Alexandre Bertails wrote: > >> On 10/18/2013 10:13 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote: > >>> On 18/10/13 03:57, Alexandre Bertails wrote: > >>> > >>>> General remark: Linked Data (in LDP) is different from general RDF: > >>>> the data lives in "small" HTTP documents, not in "big" RDF store. > >>> > >>> Hmm - collections have the potential to be large and, in general, > >>> planning on "small" seems to fail the test of real use! > >> > >> Collections as in LDPC, yes, that is true. I was talking about LDPRs. > > > > If LDPC are a subclass of LDPR ... :-) > > It's true that the ontology says so, but I don't think that there is a > subtyping relationship in practice. The spec itself does not define an > LDPC as a refinement for an LDPR: it discriminates the two cases. In the ED: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/default/ldp.html#ldpc-general 5.2.1 """ A Linked Data Platform Container MUST also be a conforming Linked Data Platform Resource. """ (whether this is a good idea in the case of patch is an interesting question) Andy
Received on Friday, 18 October 2013 16:21:26 UTC