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

Re: Trying to close ISSUE-14

From: Nandana Mihindukulasooriya <nmihindu@fi.upm.es>
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2013 20:34:42 +0200
Message-ID: <CAAOEr1nua=d=YEqi2Ay2=s=kDSk1ECVSRxrRod177e2VXQU-UQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: ashok.malhotra@oracle.com
Cc: "Wilde, Erik" <Erik.Wilde@emc.com>, "public-ldp-wg@w3.org" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>

On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 8:02 PM, Ashok Malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>wrote:

> On 4/2/2013 1:47 PM, Wilde, Erik wrote:
>> why should order always be a function of some na´ve ordering on a visible
>> facet?
> I'm not saying that.  I'm saying that data-based ordering should be
> allowed as an option.


I think there are valid use cases for both scenarios. I think Raul's
proposal can be used for explicit ordering by introducing an index (and
there might be other intuitive ways). For example,

<container> ldp:order _:l1 .
_:l1 rdf:first _:event_2012-12-01 .
_:l1 rdf:rest _:l2 .
_:l2 rdf:first _:event_2013-01-14 .
_:l2 rdf:rest _:l3 .
_:l3 rdf:first _:event_2013-03-04 .
_:l3 rdf:rest rdf:nil .

IIUC, above can be represented something like

<container> ldp:containerOrder _:order
_order ldp:containerSortPredicate x:index
_order ldp:ldp:containerSortOrder ldp:ascending
_:event_2012-12-01 x:index 1;
_:event_2013-01-14 x:index 2;
_:event_2013-03-04 x:index 3;

I think Raul's proposal support both use cases. If we add something like
ldp:explicit as an ordering directive (ldp:containerSortOrder), may be this
proposal can even support Richard's proposal as is.

Best Regards,
Received on Tuesday, 2 April 2013 18:35:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:11:46 UTC