Re: LDP Minutes of June 3 - straw-poll ?

On 4 Jun 2013, at 12:23, Roger Menday <roger.menday@uk.fujitsu.com> wrote:

> 
> Arnaud, 
> 
> At the end of the teleconf yesterday, you were leading us towards a straw-poll around the membershipXX (and related) issues. I thought that might be quite interesting. I don't think it is simply a case of is there is a fixed name (or not) for the relationship between things inside boxes. 
> 
> My characterisation: 
> 
> 1. Managing Documents (about Things) in Boxes 
> 2. Use Boxes to help managing Things (which might be inside Documents)

Web Interactions are always about interactions with information resources, be they
LDPCs ( boxes ) and LDPRs ( usually Documents )

Documents speak about things. Things may nor may not be inside boxes. Certainly most
things are neither LDPRs or LDPCs. There are apples, oranges, spiders, cats, meetings,
asteroids, that have been around way before LDPCs have been. These things are not
managed by LDPCs: Information about them is collected in LDPRs.

So 1. Managing documents in LDPCs, given that the documents speak about things
gives you all the tools you need to speak about everything in the known universe
and beyond. LDP is in the end very simple.

The use case people are trying to solve with the propertyXX relations I think needs to
be worked out and described carefully. The the idea would be to find some patterns 
that allow you to  satisfy the use case of adding  relations in connected LDPRs when creating an LDPR.


> 
> I believe that no.2 is where more applications are.    

Since you can do everyting with 1, you can't claim there are more applications in 2.

Henry

> 
> regards, 
> Roger
> 
> Fujitsu Laboratories of Europe
> 
> 
> On 3 Jun 2013, at 21:35, Arnaud Le Hors wrote:
> 
>> Now available for review: 
>> https://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/ldp/2013-06-03
>> --
>> Arnaud  Le Hors - Software Standards Architect - IBM Software Group
> 

Social Web Architect
http://bblfish.net/