Re: ldp-ISSUE-75 (monotonicity): rdf:membershipProperty makes LDP PATCHing non-monotonic [Linked Data Platform core]

> [ Hi John, it would help if in the snippets of conversation you keepthe 
names
> of those who were speaking. like I do below: ]

We each do what our mail client enables us to do with relative ease. Given 
the volume of emails, little other practical choice.  My email client is 
my employer's choice.  In a perfect world, the replies would be linked to 
the reflector URL.  World is imperfect.


> > This mean you may have to parse the whole graph to get to know how 
> > to deduce the ldp:includes relation I postit in ISSUE-79 
> I meant ldp:contains sorry.

OK.  Not something to be done without consideration, agree; I am familiar 
with the special requirements of streaming implementations from XML Schema 
discussions when a WG I used to chair was extending XSD.  I will note 
however, having read much of the JSON-LD LC draft on the plane out to 
SemTechBiz, that you may have to parse an entire JSON-LD graph 
representation in order to find the @context information.  So in the RDF 
space there is some precedent in the making here, and perhaps others 
already in existence.  Not a reason to pile on willy-nilly, either.


> > The ONLY place where you can have the default 
> > reasoning is in the LDPC itself! 
> 
> Most reliable place (pesky trust issues!) probably.  Only place? Hardly. 

> No really.  You proved it yourself in your mail here:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013May/0353.html
...
> itself. But the spec tells us that if you have the graph that came 
> from <ldpr> that says 

I am not aware of the spec relying on any particular URL as the source of 
the LDPR/C triples (or any others, for that matter).  Please point out 
where the spec says that assertions are sensitive to source/origin in the 
way you describe.



Best Regards, John

Voice US 845-435-9470  BluePages
Tivoli OSLC Lead - Show me the Scenario