Re: Issue 79 ldp:contains drafted

Hi Henry,
I don't personally care much about the name but experience shows that 
people can feel pretty strongly about names, So, I think it is wise to be 
careful about this kind of changes as a general rule, and more so in this 
particular case where the resolution didn't come easy.
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Software Standards Architect - IBM Software Group


Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote on 07/08/2013 10:25:06 PM:

> From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
> To: Arnaud Le Hors/Cupertino/IBM@IBMUS, 
> Cc: John Arwe/Poughkeepsie/IBM@IBMUS, public-ldp-wg@w3.org
> Date: 07/08/2013 10:25 PM
> Subject: Re: Issue 79 ldp:contains drafted
> 
> On 8 Jul 2013, at 22:21, Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
>     Guys, 
>     As indicated in the closing related note of issue-79, the resolution
>     at the meeting was: 
> 
>     Resolution: Closed Issue-79, by adding that on creating a new member
>     resource using POST, LDP servers MAY add a triple a la : <> 
>     ldp:created <newly_created_resource> 
>     See https://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/ldp/2013-06-19#resolution_6 
> 
>     This is what I expect to be reflected in the spec. 
> 
> I'd be happier with ldp:contains, given how things have been written out 
now.
> The problem with ldp:created is that it may lead people to think 
> that one should
> keep listing ldp:created relations even when the resource has been 
deleted.
> 
> But I can open an issue to translate ldp:created to ldp:contains later.
> 
>     --
>     Arnaud  Le Hors - Software Standards Architect - IBM Software Group
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From:        Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net> 
> To:        John Arwe/Poughkeepsie/IBM@IBMUS, 
> Cc:        public-ldp-wg@w3.org 
> Date:        07/08/2013 10:06 PM 
> Subject:        Re: Issue 79 ldp:contains drafted 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 8 Jul 2013, at 21:32, John Arwe <johnarwe@us.ibm.com> wrote: 
> 
> Henry, search for -79 you should get 2 hits. 
> 
> I see in this version of 
> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/default/ldp.html 
> 
> [[ 
> 5.4.14 LDPCs that create new member resources may add triples to the
> container as part of member creation to reflect its factory role. 
> LDP defines the ldp:contains predicate for this purpose. An LDPC 
> that tracks members created through the LDPC must add a triple whose
> subject is the container's URI, whose predicate is ldp:contains, and
> whose object is the newly created member resource's URI; it may add 
> other triples as well. 
> ]] 
> 
> [[ 
> 5.6.1 When a LDPC member resource originally created by the LDPC 
> (for example, one whose representation was HTTP POST'd to the LDPC 
> and then referenced by a membership triple) is deleted, and the LDPC
> server is aware of the member's deletion (for example, the member is
> managed by the same server), the LDPC server must also remove it 
> from the LDPC by removing the corresponding membership triple. 
> ]] 
> 
> [[ 
> 5.6.3 When the conditions in 5.6.1 hold, and the LDPC tracks member 
> resources that it created using the ldp:contains predicate, the LDPC 
server 
> must also remove the deleted member's ldp:contains triple. 
> ]] 
> 
> I would suggest that a container is always aware of ldp:contains 
> membership. Everything else should be rdfs:member : that is really 
> the distinction between the two. In the case of a deleted 
> ldp:contains resource the ?c ldp:contains ?r triple MUST be removed 
> from the LDPC. In the case of ldp:member relations this is somewhere
> between a MAY and a SHOULD as you put it above. 
> 
> 
> We did not discuss the case where an LDPC tracks its members via 
> ldp:contains and a member is created through means outside of LDP...
> should there be a corresponding ldp:contains triple or not, and is 
> that Should/Must/etc. 
> 
> The important thing about ldp:contains is that it should allow us to
> talk about things that the container created and that when a DELETE on 
> the resource is done, the resource is removed. 
> 
> Somehow I want to say that if the resource was created some other 
> way that would have been indistinguishable 
> from a POST creation then this would come to the same thing. The 
> reason to put this in terms of the HTTP Verbs is 
> that otherwise ldp:creation could end up meaning something like 
> rdf:member causing this constant confusion. 
> 
> At the moment I left things as we discussed and minuted them, so LDP
> is simply silent on this case. 
> 
> My guess is that the above is enough... 
> 
> thanks for the work, 
> 
>    Henry 
> 
> est Regards, John
> 
> Voice US 845-435-9470  BluePages 
> Tivoli OSLC Lead - Show me the Scenario 
> 
> Social Web Architect 
> http://bblfish.net/ 

> 
> Social Web Architect
> http://bblfish.net/