Re: ldp-ISSUE-75 (monotonicity): rdf:membershipProperty makes LDP PATCHing non-monotonic [Linked Data Platform core]

Shouldn't the title read ldp:membershipPredicate rather than 
rdf:membershipProperty?
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Software Standards Architect - IBM Software Group


"Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group Issue Tracker" 
<sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote on 05/29/2013 09:57:24 AM:

> From: "Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group Issue Tracker" 
> <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
> To: public-ldp-wg@w3.org, 
> Date: 05/29/2013 10:04 AM
> Subject: ldp-ISSUE-75 (monotonicity): rdf:membershipProperty makes 
> LDP PATCHing non-monotonic [Linked Data Platform core]
> 
> ldp-ISSUE-75 (monotonicity): rdf:membershipProperty makes LDP 
> PATCHing non-monotonic [Linked Data Platform core]
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/75
> 
> Raised by: Henry Story
> On product: Linked Data Platform core
> 
> The current spec says that:
> 
> [[
> 5.2.5 An LDPC must contain one triple containing the 
> ldp:membershipPredicate or ldp:membershipPredicateInverse predicate 
> when the membership predicate is not rdfs:member.
> ]]
> 
> ie. rdfs:member is a default property.
> 
> So from 
> 
> <> ldp:Container .
> 
> one can deduce that 
> 
> <> ldp:Container ;
>    ldp:membershipPredicate rdf:member .
> 
> but if one then PATCHes the above LDPC by adding say
>    { <> ldp:membershipPredicate foaf:depiction } 
> then one can no longer deduce that {<> ldp:membershipPredicate 
> rdf:member } which
> means that appending { <> ldp:membershipPredicate xxx } is a 
non-monotonic 
> process. 
> 
> Would one not then also by doing this suddenly make a LDPC that had 
> members not 
> have any at all? It seems that the spec needs to say something about 
this.
> 
> This seems to be one more argument in favor of ISSUE-71 .
> 
> 
>