Re: ISSUE-71: second bug tracking example

On 28 May 2013, at 13:19, John Arwe <johnarwe@us.ibm.com> wrote:

> > The ldp:memberXXX relations would probably best be renamed
> > to something that describes a bit better what they are doing:
> > namely explaining that they will add a relation to some other
> > resource on content creation.
> 
> That is not what they always do however.
> 
> In the simplest case (read-only container), there is no create.  Their function there is to tell clients what pattern to use in order to distinguish the membership triples from all other triples returned when the "membership subject" HTTP resource representation is retrieved.
> 
Let us say that since they allow relations to be added to any resource, the fact that they can also
add relations to the current LDPC is not of their essence. 

> 
> I don't have any special love of the names, but if we're going to take the time and effort to rename them let's have their complete function in mind, rather than an incomplete slice of same.
> 

ok, so something like ldp:relationPredicate, ldp:relationSubject, ldp:relationObject 
would be  a lot clearer.

As Arnaud has pointed out a few times the relations one can create with these
don't necessarily have anything to do with rdf:member. So naming them that
way is very confusing.

> 
> 
> Best Regards, John
> 
> Voice US 845-435-9470  BluePages 
> Tivoli OSLC Lead - Show me the Scenario 
> 
> 

Social Web Architect
http://bblfish.net/