- From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
- Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 17:14:03 +0200
- To: Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: "public-ldp-wg@w3.org" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
On 22 May 2013, at 16:41, Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com> wrote: > Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net> 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 first. > > > > > 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] https://www.w3.org/2012/12/rdf-val/Overview.php > > -- > Arnaud Le Hors - Software Standards Architect - IBM Software Group > Social Web Architect http://bblfish.net/
Received on Wednesday, 22 May 2013 15:14:40 UTC