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

Re: ACTION-115 / ACTION-116 (proposing text for ISSUE-89 and ISSUE-90)

From: Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 14:32:12 -0800
To: Alexandre Bertails <bertails@w3.org>
Cc: Linked Data Platform WG <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF593D0E76.12D82F29-ON88257C38.0079691B-88257C38.007BCD6E@us.ibm.com>
Hi Alexandre,
Thanks for completing your actions. I'm happy for us to discuss this on 
Monday.

A couple of observations:

I noticed that as you defined LDPR you also introduced the notion of LDPG. 
I think it's worth a note. My understanding is that an LDPG is essentially 
what's called an LDPR today.

If I understand correctly, your proposal on containment doesn't really 
avoid doubling the triples. It's just that you're saying each set 
(membership and containement) live in two different graphs/resources 
(containerResource and ldpc, respectively)  and by modifying the 
non-member-property filtering mechanism we have one can manage to only see 
the former.

I think we'd have to go beyond that because in the case of a 
DirectContainer where the containerResource is the container/lpdc itself, 
the two sets are actually in the same graph/resource.

Cheers.
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Software Standards Architect - IBM Software Group




From:   Alexandre Bertails <bertails@w3.org>
To:     Linked Data Platform WG <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>, 
Date:   12/05/2013 11:03 AM
Subject:        ACTION-115 / ACTION-116 (proposing text for ISSUE-89 and 
ISSUE-90)



Hi guys,

I've been working on my actions ACTION-115 and ACTION-116.

You can find a set (should say list as it's ordered) of proposals for
ISSUE-89 and ISSUE-90 at:

* http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Issue-89
* http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Issue-90

A few comments:

* it proposes to make a Binary resource an LDPR (for unification and
   consistency)
* it introduces the notion of containment
* containment is not related to membership
* membership is not changed at all
* it builds upon the new Containers, just replacing ldp:member with
   ldp:contains (I explain the rational in the proposal)
* the "it doubles the number of triples" issue is addressed
* it specifies where the triples live, including the membership
   triples

I think it's now up to Arnaud to decide if the proposals can be
discussed during the next meeting.

You guys should really look into it as soon as possible and provide
feedback (or just ask questions), so that I can improve the proposals.

Cheers,
Alexandre.
Received on Thursday, 5 December 2013 22:32:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:11:54 UTC