Re: 4.1.9 is obscure or too restrictive

hello.

On 2013-01-12 16:06 , "Henry Story" <henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote:
>[[
>4.1.9 LDPRs must use at least one RDF triple to represent a link
>(relationship) to another resource. In other words, having the source
>resourcešs URI as the subject and the target resourcešs URI as the object
>of the triple representing the link (relationship) is enough and does not
>require the creation of an intermediate link resource to describe the
>relationship. 
>]]
>https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/default/ldp.html#general
>This seems to be saying more than that there should be at least 1 triple
>in an LDPR.
>It seems to be saying that there must be at least one triple where the
>subject or the object link to a different resource which are in different
>documents. Or it is trying to say that IF  links can be made to other
>resource they only require one triple.
>I really don't know. Any clarifications from the editors on the intention
>of this passage?

i guess this is primarily an indication of the general problem how to
separate LDP metadata (relevant for the data and interaction model) and
LDP content (opaque for the LDP protocol, but may contain anything
including LDP data). in XML, this can easily be done by defining a schema
and saying which parts matter for the data and interaction model, and
which parts are opaque payload (often then simply using wildcards for
those parts of the schema). i am wondering whether there are established
RDF design pattern to tackle this problem; i cannot really imagine that
we're the first ones having to deal with it.

thanks and cheers,

dret.

Received on Saturday, 12 January 2013 17:24:23 UTC