issue 90 proposals

These LDPx/LDPx instances appear to be typos.  Given the brevity of the 
text, I'm struggling to interpret what they should be instead.
proposal 2: "Any LDPG/LDPG is a Named Graph."
proposal 2: "the LDPR/LDPR interactions are advertised through the 
rel-Link headers "

Independent of the presumed typos above, I'd like to get these questions 
Proposal 2: creation via PATCH is allowed but unmentioned; I suspect if 
you said it works mostly like POST (simply b/c 5789 makes PATCH somewhat 
less open than POST), that's fixed.

Proposal 2: "triples belong to the representation of the 
hashless-ContainerResource" and "if an LDPC is also a ContainerResource, 
then" ... where did the term ContainerResource come from?  Searching 
through the resolutions since Nov 18, I don't see it being injected, and I 
was completely current up to then I think.  Not being sure what it means, 
difficult to evaluate the proposal.

Proposal 2: "triples belong to the representation of the 
hashless-ContainerResource" ... why should we care what this resource's 
URI looks like (hashless or not)?

Proposal 2 revisting Example 3: "both membership and containment triples 
are represented" ... I'm only seeing ldp:contains, on a 
ldp:SimpleContainer.  By [1] from [2], the membership triples of a 
ldp:SimpleContainer have predicates of ldp:member.  So how does a client 
"know" that the membership triples == containment triples (assuming that's 
your intent?).


Best Regards, John

Voice US 845-435-9470  BluePages
Tivoli OSLC Lead - Show me the Scenario

Received on Monday, 16 December 2013 14:39:50 UTC