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

Re: ldp-ISSUE-58 (membersInlined): Property for asserting that complete description of members is included [Linked Data Platform core]

From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 15:46:53 +0200
Message-Id: <08AEB430-09C0-4466-B599-1298F9AEBB81@bblfish.net>
To: Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>

On 15 Mar 2013, at 18:51, Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote:

> ldp-ISSUE-58 (membersInlined): Property for asserting that complete description of members is included [Linked Data Platform core]
> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/58
> Raised by: Richard Cyganiak
> On product: Linked Data Platform core
> The spec already allows adding partial descriptions of members to the container representation. If these descriptions happen to be *complete*, then it would be nice to be able to indicate that fact. So that a client doesn't have to dereference each member in order to be sure that it has complete data.
> PROPOSAL: Add a property ldp:membersInlined true/false. The default (if not specified) is false. If true, it means that a complete description of all members [on the current page] are inlined with the container document [or page], and therefore clients SHOULD NOT do GET on the member URIs to retrieve additional triples.

so this would be something like 

@prefix log: <http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/log#> .

<> rdfs:member <mbr1> .
<> log:includes <mbr1> . 

And the log vocabulary is described here:

I am not sure if <> is a formula under that definition or if mbr1 is. But it is close.
What is sure is the object of the log:includes relation, or the object of the proposed
ldp:membersInlined relation must be an information resource  otherwise this won't work: 
if it is a pysical object object such as the Eiffel Tower or the Well in my garden, then
you can't make statements in an open world limiting the number of relations such 
an object has. On the other had it is quite possible to limit the relations in a document.

Perhaps it would be better to use that log:includes relation? As to having a relation ldp:membersInlined
be a relation to a string "true" or "false" seems a bad idea. It brings truth into the picture
which is not an easy thing to do correctly, as truth should be a relation on graphs or documents too.
log:includes at least makes the relation between the correct types of entities.



Social Web Architect

Received on Monday, 15 April 2013 13:47:27 UTC

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