Re: Feedback on Henry's proposal for ISSUE-34

Hi,

On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 1:42 PM, Roger Menday
<roger.menday@uk.fujitsu.com>wrote:
>
>  <group> a :Group;
>    :admin <a>, <b> ;
>    :user <c>, <d> .
>
> A User (a,b,c or d) is Composed inside a System resource. Inside a Group
> resource, there are regular links :admin and :user, referencing the User
> resources.  Is that what you are saying above ?
>

Yes, I think it is essentially the same as your friend / enemy example,
isn't it ? The reason for me to ask was to see whether special
'aggregation' predicate (ldp:memberPredicate) is necessary for aggregation
and also to see whether a single one is enough.


> What about an example of mixed composition/aggregation from the Bug
> Tracker scenario? Usually the :has_bug relationship between a Tracker and a
> Bug is Composition (and one could argue that is the Tracker is deleted, all
> the Bugs inside are deleted too). However, it could be that a Tracker
> :has_bug on a separate system, i.e. Bugs are linked by composition and
> 'aggregation'.
>

Yes, I think it could be one example. But at least it should be done using
two properties to denote composition and aggregation, isn't ? like for
example, :has_bug (composition) and :related_bug (aggregation). If
ldp:Container
and ldp:Aggregation are not disjoint, I think it affects Henry's proposal.

Best Regards,
Nandana