Re: Issue-34 Back_to_Basics proposal

On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 5:17 AM, Wilde, Erik <Erik.Wilde@emc.com> wrote:
> hello john.
>
> On 2013-01-31 22:01 , "John Arwe" <johnarwe@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>>Not having seen any replies to [1], wondering if it got lost in the
>>shuffle.  This is the same proposal [2] mentioned on this week's call for
>>how to resolve the issue and define an interaction model covering both
>>aggregation
>> and composition.[1]
>>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013Jan/0330.html
>>[2] http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Issue-34:_Back_to_Basics
>
> when you say that in aggregations, there is a separate GET for "non-member
> properties", are you referring to properties of members that are not
> specified by LDP? if so, why would you split members this way? we can
> cleanly specify which properties we regard as being meaningful in the
> context of LDP, and then when you GET a member, those ones which are
> specified as being meaningful for LDP can be identified, and all the other
> ones are the ones which i think you were referring to. but i may have
> misunderstood the term to begin with. did i?
>

John isn't introducing a new concept or change in behavior.  If you
look at the spec, there are 2 classes of properties for containers.
Those that illustrate which triples are the members of the container
(which could be denoted with the rdfs:member property as an example)
and those triples that don't but supply other useful data like:
rdf:type, dc:title, dc:modified, etc.

See http://www.w3.org/TR/ldp/#ldpc-get_non_member_props

> cheers,
>
> dret.
>
>



--
- Steve

Received on Friday, 1 February 2013 18:03:55 UTC