- From: Alexandre Bertails <bertails@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 15:24:19 -0400
- To: Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org>, public-ldp-patch@w3.org
On 10/18/2013 12:20 PM, Andy Seaborne wrote: > 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) Indeed. Alexandre. > > Andy > >
Received on Friday, 18 October 2013 19:24:21 UTC