Re: Issue-71: the first bug tracking example

Henry Story <> wrote on 05/22/2013 06:27:17 AM:

> ...
> I have no idea what you mean "define containers without forcing 
> people to change their vocabulary".
> The question is what is the UC&R for this functionality? Where does 
> it come from? What is the
> need? (I mean for the protocol)

This is about allowing people to expose existing data in which they have 
been using something like Nandana's bt:hasBugReport predicate or something 
similar without forcing them to change the representation of their data to 
use rdf:member.
I don't know that we have this requirement captured in our UC&R. If we 
don't we should fix this.

> The LDP spec is about GET, PUT, POST, DELETE. One whole section of 
> the spec is about how those
> words are used in resources we call LDPCs . Fine. So it is quite 
> reasonable to ask what the point of
> ldp:membershipPredicate is.

Yes, it is. But the reason is much simpler than what you seem to think and 
it has nothing to do with validation.

>  I gave above what seem two possible 
> reasons for why it
> is needed with respect to POSTing. If you know the restrictions on 
> the relation, you know what type
> of document you can or cannot POST. That still leaves room for a 
> group such as RDF-Validation
> group [1] to crete a language to make such definitions machine 
> parsable, but one could argue for 
> the inclusion of those relations on those grounds.
> Henry
> [1] 

Arnaud  Le Hors - Software Standards Architect - IBM Software Group

Received on Wednesday, 22 May 2013 14:47:53 UTC