Re: Issue-71: the first bug tracking example

>>> 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 would just like to say that one potential solution [1] to issue-72 does NOT to introduce a new membershipObject predicate. 



Received on Wednesday, 22 May 2013 15:25:45 UTC