Re: Issue-71: the first bug tracking example


On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 5:11 PM, Arnaud Le Hors <> wrote:

> Alexandre Bertails <> wrote on 05/29/2013 06:18:11 AM:
> > ...
> > > 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.
> >
> > I don't understand why adding it later would break anything. It would be
> > a plain conservative extension, with backward compatibility.
> If a client expects to be able to find the member resources of a container
> by looking for the predicate rdf:member there is no way we can change that
> later without breaking that client, is there?
> We can't just later decide that servers may choose to use a different
> predicate and simply specify it with ldp:membershipPredicate. A client that
> is implemented against LDP 1.0 would look for rdf:member and wrongly
> conclude that the container has no members.

According to the definition, "a product or technology is backward or
downward compatible if it can work with input generated by an older product
or technology." [1] i.e. all the LDP++ clients / servers will work with LDP
1.0 data if it is planned as an extension.


[1] -

Received on Wednesday, 29 May 2013 15:37:18 UTC