Re: ISSUE-37 WAS:Proposal for containers

Steve Battle <steve.battle@sysemia.co.uk> wrote on 01/31/2013 12:10:06 PM:

> From: Steve Battle <steve.battle@sysemia.co.uk>
> To: Arnaud Le Hors/Cupertino/IBM@IBMUS, "public-ldp-wg@w3.org" 
> <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>, 
> Date: 01/31/2013 12:11 PM
> Subject: Re: ISSUE-37 WAS:Proposal for containers
> 
> On 31 Jan 2013, at 19:54, Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
> One argument against introducing ldp:contains or any such new 
> predicate is that we want to encourage reuse and this doesn't. 
> I'm not really sure this is independent of ISSUE-37. As the draft 
> stands it only supports composition and if that's all we end up with
> there won't be any confusion about what rdfs:member is about, will 
there?
> 
> My understanding is that the spec being silent on aggregation only 
> means that it places no constraints on the way that users are able 
> to create their own RDF aggregations.

Indeed.

> Therefore, there is every chance that the existing composition model
> can be confused with user aggregation unless it introduces its own 
> vocabulary as proposed.

Since one can choose to use different predicates to indicate membership in 
a container people can't - and shouldn't! - rely on the predicate being 
used to figure out whether they are dealing with an LDPC or not. They need 
to look at whether the resource is of class ldp:Container.
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Software Standards Architect - IBM Software Group

> 
> Steve.