Re: Proposal to close ISSUE-59 (recursive-delete): Reconsider usage of Aggregate/Composite construct to get predictable container delete behavior

On 4/19/13 6:04 PM, Cody Burleson wrote:
> Scenario:
>
> If I DELETE a container, I expect all children of the container to be 
> deleted also, but not aggregate members. In order for the server to 
> have the logic to do that, I need some indication of what's a direct 
> "real" member of the container and what is only a reference. What 
> other indication or technique might I use, if not for ldp:contains ?
+1

RDF enables relations to have machine-readable and comprehensible 
meaning by way of their semantics.

rdf:contains denotes a relation.

Imagine if RDF stood for "Relations Description Framework" instead of 
"Resource Description Framework". It would have would have negated the 
horrible "Resource" distraction, thereby leaving nothing but the clarity 
of logic, relations, and semantics on the table.

Links:

1. http://www.w3.org/2006/gen/ont
2. 
http://linkeddata.uriburner.com/about/html/http/www.w3.org/2006/gen/ont 
-- Linked Data view (note: nothing infers that "i" of entity type: not 
of the Web, is a Web Resource)
3. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Aug/0000.html -- 
Historic perspective on "Resource" re., URIs and URLs
4. http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/WD-rdf11-concepts-20130115/ -- updated and 
much enhanced concepts and abstract syntax guide for RDF.

Kingsley
>
> - Cody
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 2:32 PM, Steve Speicher <sspeiche@gmail.com 
> <mailto:sspeiche@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 2:47 PM, Cody Burleson
>     <cody.burleson@base22.com <mailto:cody.burleson@base22.com>> wrote:
>     > I prefer Henry's proposal of using ldp:contains in addition to
>     > ldp:membershipPredicate or ldp:membershipPredicateInverse because it
>     > provides a clear mechanism for properly managing resources.
>     >
>     > Without that, how would I be able to distinguish between
>     resources that a
>     > container actually owns and those which it simply refers to? I
>     would have to
>     > come up with some mechanism and this seems to be a reasonable
>     one, so why
>     > not just go with it and make it standard?
>     >
>
>     What is the scenario where this distinction is needed?
>
>     --
>     - Steve Speicher
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Cody Burleson
> Enterprise Web Architect, Base22
> Mobile: +1 (214) 702-6338
> Skype: codyburleson
> Email: cody@base22.com <mailto:cody@base22.com>
> Blog: codyburleson.com <http://codyburleson.com>
>
> *<http://base22.com>*
> *
> *
> *Check my free/busy time. 
> <http://www.google.com/calendar/embed?src=cody.burleson%40base22.com&ctz=America/Chicago%20>*
>
>


-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen