Feedback on Henry's proposal for ISSUE-34

Henry's simple aggregation proposal [1] is close to the model I have
in mind.  I have a few comments:

1) ldp:Collection - this seems unnecessary in vocabulary.  We now need
to define semantics of it.  For talking/terminology it is ok.  it
would be simpler to just have ldp:Container and ldp:Aggregation.  I
don't really see one as a subclass as the other.

2) Why do we need ldp:member and ldp:contains?  What if my model
already has terms defined like foaf:knows?  Do I need to insert
another triple for each entry of the container vs. just using
ldp:containerMemberPredicate?  If I did have my foaf:knows, would it
be expected that I would link to ldp:member?  If so simply use
owl:SubPropertyOf ?

3) What are the semantics of these collections?

<1> a :Collection;
   :contains <a>;
   :member <b>.

<2> a :Container;
   :member <c>, <d>.

<3> a :Aggregation;
   :contains <e>, <f>.

<4> a :Container, :Aggregation;
   :contains <g>, <h>.

I'd recommend that if there is a conflict, then aggregation is the
default.  Though I don't feel strongly about it.

4) Can I convert a Container to an Aggregation (or vice versa)?  It
would seem that it might make sense to go from Container->Aggregation
but not the other way, otherwise we'd have to define a bunch of rules.

5) Interaction model for resource creation: I would assume the way to
create a resource and add it to a collection would not change for
Aggregation, POST representation to collection, resource created and
added to collection.  Right?

[1] - http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Issue-34_-_Aggregation:_simple_proposal

--
- Steve Speicher

Received on Friday, 18 January 2013 21:23:27 UTC