- From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
- Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2013 19:02:20 +0200
- To: Alexandre Bertails <bertails@w3.org>
- Cc: Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org>, public-ldp-patch@w3.org
On 18 Oct 2013, at 21:24, Alexandre Bertails <bertails@w3.org> wrote: > 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. I would not get stuck on this issue as far as PATCH is concerned. There are many ways things could go to reconcile these issues. > > Alexandre. > >> >> Andy >> >> > > Social Web Architect http://bblfish.net/
Received on Saturday, 19 October 2013 17:02:54 UTC