Re: Missing use case for supporting ldp:membershipPredicate/Subject

> i guess in the end it's about balancing these issues. personally, i 
think
> i would rather have some upfront work and bring data into standardized
> form and then be able to freely mix things, but that's definitely just a
> preference.

This might be an example of where incremental adoption has a place.
If you want to be able to just expose your existing data (layer LDP over 
what you have, very thin transform, etc), then here's how you do that ... 
X.
If you want to also make your data generally composable (thicker 
transform) to take full advantage of this, then here's how you do that ... 
X'.  (e.g. require the 'extra' rdfs:members as Henry proposes).
Letting product owners invest incrementally to realize incremental 
benefits has been required for us to motivate those investments.  If the 
entry point is a (relatively) thick transform that requires more thought 
(oh noes!) it's harder to get attention from existing products for whom 
standards are a means to better serve their clients, not an end unto 
themselves.


Best Regards, John

Voice US 845-435-9470  BluePages
Tivoli OSLC Lead - Show me the Scenario