Re: Issue-71: the first bug tracking example

> 
> > > 
> > > So let me here try to bypass this problem and see how far I can go. 
> > > Let us say </bugs/> is our container with the following content:
> > > 
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~
> > > <> a ldp:Container, bt:BugReport;
> > 
> > This should be named something like bt:BugReportContainer rather 
> > that bt:BugReport. 
> 
> Indeed. I guess your proposal isn't immune to confusion either, is it? ;-) 
> 
> > One could perhams even use owl Restrictions to define a class like that.
> > 
> > >  val:primaryTopicRestriction [ onProperty bt:product
> > >                                hasValue  <http://example.org/app/
> > BugTracker/ProductA> ]; 
> > 
> > So again this is a restriction of the primaryTopic of the members of
> > the container.
> > another name could be val:memberPrimaryTopicRestriction .
> > 
> 
> I have to admit not to understand what this has to do with the question at hand. And if we can't defined LDP without OWL we've failed. 
> 
> > >   bt:member <bug1>, <bug2>, <bug3> . 
> 
> How does a client know that bt:member is the predicate used in your container to list the member resources? 
> Given your criticism of Nandana's modeling shouldn't you list bug reports in your container rather than bugs here? 

According to my reading of Henry's email, the <bug1>, <bug2>, ...  resources above are informational resources and are bugreports. Resources such as <bug1#x> are bug resources. So, I think he is actually listing bugreports with rdfs:member in the above example. 

But, I want to use LDP to manage links between things, using domain vocabulary - so, I'm not so sure if I can agree with what Henry is saying :) 

I think that the argument around modelling is also coming to Networth next. i.e. I can see a similar argument applying to Networth and NetworthReport. Henry ? 

Again, I'm of the opinion that if people want to coalesce their information and 'real' resources, then LDP shouldn't stop them from doing that. 

Roger