Re: issue 90 proposals

Hi John,

On 12/16/2013 09:39 AM, John Arwe wrote:
> 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 "

It was meant to be LDPC/LDPG (I just fixed it, thanks). It cannot be
LDPR as this would include LDPB.

> Independent of the presumed typos above, I'd like to get these questions
> answered.
> 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.

I don't think we ever discussed creation via PATCH.

> 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.

We were informally speaking about ContainerResource during the
meeting. Like I wrote in [3], I gave a proper definition to
ContainerResource in [4], which is

[[
A special kind of LDPR (outside of the hierarchy) is the
ldp:ContainerResource, the object of the ldp:containerResource
property for a Container.
]]

>
> 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)?

The ContainerResource can be any URI. The membership rules just tell
you what's gonna be the subject of the membership triples (the
ContainerResource). If you want to say to what Named Graph those
membership triples belong to, it's only natural to use the hashless
version of that subject membership.

> 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?).

ISSUE-89 [5] says explicitly

[[
This builds on top of the new Container proposal but replaces
ldp:member with ldp:contains to align the containment triples and the
membership triples in the case of the SimpleContainer.
]]

Hope this clarifies your question.

Alexandre.

[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013Dec/0032.html
[4] 
http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Issue-90#PROPOSAL_1:_define_hierarchy_of_resources
[5] http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Issue-89

>
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/index.php?title=Containers&oldid=3233
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/ldp/2013-11-25#resolution_2
>
>
> Best Regards, John
>
> Voice US 845-435-9470  BluePages
> Tivoli OSLC Lead - Show me the Scenario
>

Received on Monday, 16 December 2013 14:55:57 UTC