Re: Issue-71: the first bug tracking example

Alexandre Bertails <bertails@w3.org> wrote on 05/22/2013 11:00:35 AM:

> ...
> I may be wrong,
> but I'm not sure that people are desperately in need of such a feature
> and if yes, it would always be possible to add it in the next version
> of the spec, with very little cost.

So, in my effort to keep us on track regarding our schedule I've been 
looking at issues we can take off of the table. Unfortunately I don't 
think this is a possibility here.
If we don't have membershipPredicate in LDP 1.0 there is no way we can add 
it later without breaking backwards compability. A server would have to 
keep using rdf:member or break clients that expect it.

> ...
> Of course, if I had to vote on keeping or not this feature, I would
> say 0 (I can live with it). But still, that makes the spec both more
> complex and difficult to understand, while it should be simple and
> easy.

Good. :-) We're going to need some willingness to compromise on all sides 
to get us moving forward.
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Software Standards Architect - IBM Software Group