Re: ldp-ISSUE-73 (rdf:member): LDPCs to list all their rdf:member [Linked Data Platform core]

"Looping back" to this per my earlier-today email.

> > > It is clear from the examples Nandana put together with the bug 
> > > tracking examples, that the LDPCs never 
> > > listed any of the members themselves. Nobody seemed to think that 
> > > was odd. See for example 

Ok, looking at model 
2, I see we have another case of reading the same [email prose above] 
content in different ways.
Indeed, the subset of the example in Model 2 you refer to, 
<> a ldp:Container;
 ldp:membershipSubject <>;
         ldp:membershipPredicate bt:tracksProduct .
does not look odd, b/c my brain (aka wetware LDP client) follows (tries to 
follow?) the spec as currently written, so it knows (follows the "rule" as 
you called it in later emails) that in order to find this container's 
membership triples, (logically) query for the triple pattern < /BugTracker 
, bt:tracksProduct , ? >.
> But that one is meant to guess from looking at the BugTracker resource 
> members were created.

s/created/listed/ , but that aside I understand your point.

I don't think that following what you call the rule is a guess however. 
Modulo the Raul-instigated discussion on how accurately the rules are 
expressed in the existing text, following the spec when constructing 
examples aligned with the spec and interpreting them according to the spec 
seems natural, not odd, and is not a guess.

Fair to say that the existence of rules like this has effects elsewhere 
(e.g. Pierre-Antoine's thread) and propose changing (e.g. doing without) 
them.  (20-20 hindsight of course) helpful for those of us not in your 
head and/or more casual readers of these threads (like you, we don't get 
to all of them at once) to bang us over the head with the statement that 
you're talking about a rule-change.

Best Regards, John

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

Received on Friday, 31 May 2013 15:17:44 UTC