Re: ldp-ISSUE-78 (inferencing): inferencing levels [Linked Data Platform Spec]

> ldp-ISSUE-78 (inferencing): inferencing levels [Linked Data Platform Spec]
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/78
> 
> Raised by: Henry Story
> On product: Linked Data Platform Spec
> 
> The spec should clearly set up out front what the inferencing level is for a client to be able to interact with the resources. 
> 
> Currently it is not clear, there are two views one can have of this:
> 
> Inferencing level 0
> ----------------
> 
> One can deduce from various passages in the spec that no inferencing level is the desired requirement.
> 
>  "4.1.6 LDPR representations should have at least one rdf:type set explicitly.  This makes the representations much more useful to client applications that don’t support inferencing. "
> 
> In the Editor's TODO it is written:
> 
>  "Deployment guide (was: 4.8 Common Properties) talks about rdfs:Range which implies inferencing. 4.1.7 spec says want to avoid putting that reqt on 
> clients."
> 
> The spec should make clear up front that no inferencing is required of clients to work with this version of the specification. ( I.e. to interact with the LDPCs and LDPRs as far as HTTP goes ). Publishers may use vocabularies that go beyond this of course.
> 
> Higher inferencing levels
> ---------------------
> 
> The spec also seems to require inferencing of the client in various other parts:
> 
>  1. In order to know that 
>         <> rdf:member <member>
>     implies that <member> was created by <>, one needs to know that
>       <> a ldp:Container .
>     This can be made clear by considering that if one had an explicit relation ldp:contains then one would not need this inferencing step.
> 
>   2. The ldp:membershipXXX  properties require inferencing to go from an initial
> 
>    <> ldp:membershipPredicate ex:attachment;
>          ldp:membershipPredicate <other> .
>    <other> ex:attachment <member1>, <member2> .
> 

Henry, 

Is there something wrong with the above turtle ?
i.e. is there a typo on the two membershipPredicates ?

thanks, 
Roger


>     to 
> 
>     <> rdf:member <member1>, <member2> .
> 
>    which would let one know what the <member>s of a container were.
> 
>    The inferencing required would be a rule expressed in N3 of the form:
> 
>    { ?ldpc a ldp:Container;
>          ldp:membershipPredicate ?p;
>          ldp:membershipSubject ?s .
>          ?s ?p ?o . } => { ?ldpc rdf:member ?o }
> 
> 
> 
>