- From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
- Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 22:09:17 +0200
- To: John Arwe <johnarwe@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: "public-ldp-wg@w3.org" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <35D0775C-ACFE-42C7-9434-AFFF5F2E54BB@bblfish.net>
On 30 May 2013, at 21:08, John Arwe <johnarwe@us.ibm.com> wrote: > > I am saying there is no restriction the Range of the > > ldp:membershipSubject Property. So it can be any resource, right? > > *that* I can agree with. > > > There are two things: > > 1. members of an LDPC are added via the rdf:member relation > > 2. other relations that get added when you POST content to an LDPC: > > membershipXXX > > > > It's up to you to specify what the point of adding those relations > > is. There is nothing in the UC&R for it, so I can't > > really tell, and their addition was not discussed in this WG. > > rdfS:member, and yes *if we assume* in-flight proposals to redefine the spec are resolved as you wish. > > In the submission and in the current spec, those relations replace the subject/predicate of the membership triples. > Saying there's nothing in UC&R is irrelevant, UC&R is about ... lemme see... Use Cases and Requirements. It's function is not to specify syntax. > Saying their addition was not discussed with the WG is pretending the world is other than it is. > We've had the questions, discussions in the WG more than once, (and there are examples in the spec+submission to motivate them). You might not find them sufficiently convincing for your personal tastes, but that's a different matter. > Look, it is not my personal taste. Please look at the note of issue-75 https://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/75 "non-monotonic ldp:membershipXXX " which shows that you have serious logical flaws in the system currently: you break RDF semantics! So I am sure you can do what you want to do without breaking RDF semantics. It would be pretty bizzaare that you had found a way of doing things that expressed something that could not be expressed in something more powerful than first order logic. Now it would have helped if people had looked at that before and pointed it out. But well I only just recently got to look carefully at this issue. And though I have had a suspicion about it for a long time, I can't deal with every issue simultaneously. As I started digging we found more and more issues with this. Initially I just gave you the initiators the benefit of the doubt. After all you did a very good job with the spec. But not every problem is just a simple matter of taste decision. This one is a core issue. Now the question is: is there enough time to solve the problems, or should we perhaps defer this till a next verion? Or do you want to have the whole spec rejected in final call because you break major core founding spec of the W3C? Henry > > Best Regards, John > > Voice US 845-435-9470 BluePages > Tivoli OSLC Lead - Show me the Scenario > > Social Web Architect http://bblfish.net/
Received on Thursday, 30 May 2013 20:09:55 UTC