Re: ldp-ISSUE-73 (rdf:member): LDPCs to list all their rdf:member [Linked Data Platform core]

On 29 May 2013, at 15:08, John Arwe <> wrote:

> > yes. the language would need to be tuned. I was just trying to make 
> "tuned"??  it completely changes the meaning for Pete's sake. 

If it completely changes the meaning of my proposed ISSUE-73, then 
you are tuning it wrong :-)

> The spec already requires all members to be listed - that is the intent and purpose of membership triples. 

Well it says this:

5.3.1 The representation of a LDPC must contain a set of triples with a consistent subject and predicate whose objects indicate members of the container. The subject of the triples may be the container itself or may be another resource (as in the example above). See also 5.2.3.

But it does not say that 
 - all the members are there
 - that the relation be rdf:member

It is clear from the examples Nandana put together with the bug tracking examples, that the LDPCs never 
listed any of the members themselves. Nobody seemed to think that was odd. See for example

I suggest something along the lines of:

5.3.1 The representation of a LDPC must contain a set of triples whose subject is the container, with rdf:member predicate and whose object is an  LDPRs that was either created by the container, or that acts as if it were created by the container. An LDPC SHOULD list all members of the container.

> The proposal as written says the container must list all members it created via rdfs:member ... which is (the created-only part at least) is not something the spec exactly covers today, so that's a reasonable point of discussion.  Today's spec covers a superset (created by the container + those added via other means). 

The main point of ISSUE-73 is that membership of a container be limited to the rdf:member property. The ldp:membershipXXX relations are doing something else entirely. They are just ways of specifying that certain relations will also be created when a member is created,
as shown in the detailed example I put forward on the BugTracker

> The "tuned" version then nets out to "remove ldp:membershipPredicate and force the use of rdfs:member", correct?


>    Just so we're clear about what we're talking about, rather than hiding it in a list of pro's. 
> Best Regards, John
> Voice US 845-435-9470  BluePages 
> Tivoli OSLC Lead - Show me the Scenario 

Social Web Architect

Received on Wednesday, 29 May 2013 14:07:06 UTC