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

On 29 May 2013, at 22:21, Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com> wrote:

> Shouldn't the title read ldp:membershipPredicate rather than rdf:membershipProperty? 

Thanks. I fixed that and changed the title to the shorter
"non-monotonic rdf:membershipPredicate "


> --
> 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 .
> > 
> > 
> > 

Social Web Architect
http://bblfish.net/