Re: Issue-71: the first bug tracking example

On 29 May 2013, at 00:41, Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com> wrote:

> 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. 

That's completely fine, and in fact a good thing. Future versions should continue to support 
rdf:member on  containers as explained by ISSUE-73. It is a core feature of an LDP protocol
that one be able to find what resources were created by a container. 

> 
> > ...
> > 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.

My compromise: change ldp:membershipXXX to ldp:relationXXX and 
accept ISSUE-73. Then we have something that works well with Atom,
that is RESTful, that is clear and easy to understand and that follows
HATEOS principles.

   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HATEOAS

Getting this done, will help solve a whole bunch of issues, so we'll
move along a lot faster.

> --
> Arnaud  Le Hors - Software Standards Architect - IBM Software Group
> 

Social Web Architect
http://bblfish.net/