Re: Issue-71: the first bug tracking example

> hello all.
> 
> On 2013-05-22 11:00 , "Alexandre Bertails" <bertails@w3.org> wrote:
>> My biggest fear is LDP to become a mini-language whose semantics
>> (eg. container membership) would depend on an external domain
>> model. There should be *only one way* to speak about membership.
> 
> words of wisdom. representations always should be self-describing for the
> service domain. if i need a vocabulary to interpret the vocabulary (need
> the membershipPredicate info to be able to tell how membership is
> represented), this violates one of the main principles of REST.


But, I don't think this is happening here. If a predicate is declared as a membershipPredicate, surely this is the sign that the predicate is used for membership. What other vocabulary might you need to interpret that ? Besides, I think a good RESTful design shouldn't require the client to deduce that anyway !!
 
Roger

> it also
> makes it virtually impossible to aggregate/combine resources, because when
> i start doing this, now what do i do? do i have two membershipPredicates
> and they apply to different members? can there be conflicts in these
> mappings? if cannot take a LDP resource from one container and simply POST
> it to another container, then something is fishy. can i do that with the
> current membershipPredicate model? how would a container keep track of
> various membershipPredicate mappings in various resources?
> 
> cheers,
> 
> dret.
> 
>