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

Re: ldp-ISSUE-61 (membershipSubject): remove membershipSubject [Linked Data Platform core]

From: Roger Menday <roger.menday@uk.fujitsu.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 16:23:34 +0100
To: Linked Data Platform Working Group <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C3237259-85EC-44CD-8FDE-A8267CC36F20@uk.fujitsu.com>

Henry, 

In issue 51, I expressed a requirement to have a forward link between an LDPR and its LDPC's. Then at the F2F I was reassured (kind of) that at least there is a link from the LDPC back to it's LDPR using membershipSubject. So I cannot agree with removing the last remaining link. 

regards, 
Roger


> ldp-ISSUE-61 (membershipSubject): remove membershipSubject [Linked Data Platform core]
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/61
> 
> Raised by: Henry Story
> On product: Linked Data Platform core
> 
> the ldp:membershipSubject functionality was never really discussed in the Working group, but it was just taken on from the original IBM proposal. It complicates things and makes the LDPC model a lot harder to understand:
> 
> - if the subject is another LDPC why not just POST to that other LDPC? In which case this feature is redundant.
> - if the subject is not an LDPC why not just PATCH the other LDPR with the new information? In which case this feature is redundant.
> 
> What is the use case for this? Given that the aim of this first spec is to be very simple, why is this needed at  all, when so many other features have been having trouble being developed?
> 
> 
> 



Received on Tuesday, 23 April 2013 15:24:33 UTC

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