Re: ISSUE-71: second bug tracking example

Henry Story <> wrote on 05/30/2013 01:09:17 PM:

> ...
> Look, it is not my personal taste. Please look at the note of issue-75
> "non-monotonic ldp:membershipXXX "
> which shows that you have serious logical flaws in the system
> currently: you break RDF semantics! 

I agree we don't want to break RDF semantics. The fact that we don't want 
LDP to depend on inferencing doesn't mean we should prevent anyone from 
using it either.

This being said, I think there are ways you can address the monotonicity 
issue and keep membershipPredicate. We could require membershipPredicate 
to be specified rather than have a default value for one, couldn't we?

> 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? 

Let's not jump the gun. I haven't heard anyone say we should ignore the 
issue. I certainly don't plan to! :-)

> Henry
> Best Regards, John
> Voice US 845-435-9470  BluePages 
> Tivoli OSLC Lead - Show me the Scenario 

> Social Web Architect

Arnaud  Le Hors - Software Standards Architect - IBM Software Group

Received on Thursday, 30 May 2013 20:43:29 UTC