Re: ISSUE-71: second bug tracking example

Just to make it explicit, In the example all the predicates with the prefix
x ( x:membershipSubject, x:membershipPredicate plus the ones I
invented x:containers, x:membershipPredicateRange), I considered them out
of LDP and are application specific. My objective was to see if LDP only
provided me alternative #3 whether I can still achieve what I wanted
to achieve using my custom extensions i.e. I interoperate with an
implementation that doesn't understand x still provide better features to
an implementation that understand x.

BR,
N

On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 8:48 PM, Nandana Mihindukulasooriya <
nmihindu@fi.upm.es> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Just as an exercise if I stick to Raul's alternative 3 and also without
> membershipSubject, I can still manage links between information resources
> created by LDP without much of a problem. To the see the other impacts, if
> we see an example where
>
> Where I will POST
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> <> a bt:ProductDescription;;
>    foaf:primaryTopic <#p>;
>    dcterms:title "The Product A Page";
>
> <#p> a bt:Product ;
>      dcterms:title "Product A" .
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> to the container  /BugTracker/productsContainer/
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> <> a ldp:Container;
>    x:membershipSubject </BugTracker>;
>    x:membershipPredicate bt:tracksProduct .
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> LDP will guarantee to,
>
> 1. create a resource and add it's url to the container using rdfs:member
> 2. interpret all the null uris in the request body with the URI of the
> created resource
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> <> a ldp:Container;
>    x:membershipSubject </BugTracker>;
>    x:membershipPredicate bt:tracksProduct;
>    x:membershipPredicateRange bt:Product;
>    rdfs:member <ProductA> .
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> In addition my application logic will,
>
> 3. parse the request body to search for foaf:primaryTopic uri and add it
> as the < ?membershipSubject, ?membershipPredicate, ?foaf:primaryTopic > to
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> /BugTracker
>
> <> bt:tracksProduct </BugTracker/productsContainer/ProductA#p> ;
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Furthermore, I might add other things like, 4.) x:containers property in
> my resource so that people know where to create products and bugs
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> /BugTracker
>
> <> x:containers </BugTracker/productsContainer/> ,
>                          </BugTracker/bugsContainer/> .
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> and 5.) x:membershipPredicateRange so that people know which type of
> resources can be created in a specific container
>
>
>  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> <> a ldp:Container;
>    x:membershipSubject </BugTracker>;
>    x:membershipPredicate bt:tracksProduct;
>    x:membershipPredicateRange bt:Product .
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> or just add the following triples
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> bt:tracksProduct a rdfs:Property;
> rdfs:range bt:Product .
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I think some of these things are quite useful to be included in the LDP
> but at the same time increases the complexity as mentioned in Raul's email.
> It would be nice to see the pros, cons and implications of different
> alternatives in Raul's email.
>
> Best Regards,
> Nandana
>