Re: Issue-71: the first bug tracking example

On 22 May 2013, at 16:41, Arnaud Le Hors <> wrote:

> 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 see how we are forcing people to change their data given that the LDP spec
is not finished and this is in flux. 

> I don't know that we have this requirement captured in our UC&R. If we don't we should fix this. 

The easiest way to fix this may be to be clearer about what these relations are doing

> > 
> > 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. 

That's a pitty, because that's a good reason. I don't see why the LDP spec
needs to otherwise add vocabulary for things that have nothing to do with 
adding resources to a container. People can add other relations to a container
but what business is it of ours to specify it? 

It is clear from Roger Menday's "membershipObject" thread that these 
membershipXXX relations are completely orthogonal to the rdf:member-ship 
of a container. To use these relations in a way that would allow us to
model things correctly one would end up with something like this:

<> a ldp:Container;
   ldp:membershipSubject <#i>;
   ldp:membershipOject ??? ;
   ldp:membershipPredicate pets:has_pet .

<#i> pets:has_pet <zaza#it>, <zara#it> .

so clearly here pets:has_pet has nothing to do with rdf:member anymore. It is
doing something completely different. Not something that one needs be against,
it is just orthogonal to rdf:member-ship of an LDPC.

Let's then seperate concerns.

> >  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

Social Web Architect

Received on Wednesday, 22 May 2013 15:14:40 UTC