membershipPredicates or not ?

Raúl,

For some reason, your email earlier today [1] didn't reach my mailbox .. (??) 
I only read it on the web archive. Anyway, here is my reply.


Regarding alternative 3, and rdf:member only, I am not really happy about making this the only predicate we manage inside LDP. The LDPC concept is also used for pagination and update. If the predicate is fixed to rdf:member, this functionality isn't available with any other predicate emanating from an LDPC (?) That is a big loss. 

My opinion is that it is only a shortcut when an LDPR its LDPC are the same resource. I think this is causing complexity, and the IF .. THENs .. that you have pointed out. Alternative 3 outlines one way of avoiding that. However, I could offer a 4th option. An LDPR and it's LDPC's are distinct resources, and each LDPC must have membershipPredicate and membershipSubject assertions. I think this gives the necessary flexibility that any predicate can be managed using its associated LDPC. 

regards, 
Roger

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013May/0211.html