container-first or entity-first ?

hi John, 

Just catching-up with all your emails from yesterday (and Henry's from today). I agree with you about the so-called "bad modellers". I agree with Henry that "membershipXXX" could have a better name. I think we should also consider how we use the word "container" too. 

> > 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
> 

There is this assumption in many LDP discussions that the LDPC is the first port-of-call.  
I don't see it that way - for 90% of the time. 

I would claim that clients mostly start as regular (read) LD consumers - i.e. they start with LDPR's ! If they find some LDPC resources around the LD, they can use them to do creation/update (the client uses the membershipSubjects and membershipPredicates in order to figure out which predicate of the LD each LDPC is managing). 

Roger


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