Re: issue-21 proposal

hello all.

On 2013-03-13 09:11 , "Steven Battle" <steve.battle@sysemia.co.uk> wrote:
>I propose that in addition to ldp:membershipPredicate, the spec should
>also support ldp:reverseMembershipPredicate.
>See 5.2.5 and 5.5.2. This is a container-managed property, not intended
>for use in lDP resources.

i have reservations about the ldp:membershipPredicate anyway, so adding
more aliasing mechanisms doesn't look all that great to me. essentially,
these aliasing mechanisms make representations very context-dependent,
where you cannot just look at an LDP resource and understand what it
represents; you need to know the mapping rules that are managed by the
specific service. if you know take such a resource and take it out of
context (say you GET it from one LDP service and POST it to another LDP
service), you cannot just do it based on the representation. that's my
fundamental reservation about the ldp:membershipPredicate mechanism to
begin with, and the more mechanisms like this we're adding, the more we're
moving away from REST's goal of making things self-describing, and making
our representations very context-sensitive.

cheers,

dret.

Received on Friday, 15 March 2013 16:03:19 UTC