Re: ldp-ISSUE-79 (ldp:contains): ldp:contains

Hi Henry,

I think the proposed text below has several issues:

"relates an LDP Container to the elements it contains, ie LDPRs that were 
created through this LDPC or that act as if they had been"

1. LDPCs aren't limited to containing LDPRs. They can contain any types of 
resources, including binary ones.
2. LDPCs aren't limited to containing resources that are created from the 
LDPC. Although the end of the sentence opens up to that possibility I 
think the text unnecessarily implies a tie that just doesn't exist.

I would suggest something like this instead:

"relates an LDP Container to the resources it contains".

I think you're right that having an LDP specific predicate would prevent 
any ambiguity. Sadly, this is a good example of why it is so difficult to 
reuse existing vocabularies.
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Software Standards Architect - IBM Software Group




From:   "Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group Issue Tracker" 
<sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
To:     public-ldp-wg@w3.org, 
Date:   05/31/2013 02:43 AM
Subject:        ldp-ISSUE-79 (ldp:contains): ldp:contains



ldp-ISSUE-79 (ldp:contains): ldp:contains

http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/79

Raised by: Henry Story
On product: 

replace all (most) references of rdf:member in the spec to ldp:contains . 

ldp:contains a rdf:Property;
    :comment "relates an LDP Container to the elements it contains, ie 
LDPRs that were created through this LDPC or that act as if they had 
been";
    :domain ldp:Container;
    :range ldp:Resource .

The advantage of using this relation is that:
  - it is more specific than rdfs:member which can be applied much more 
widely than LDPCs
  - it does not require the client to know that { <> a ldp:Container }, 
and so does not need to
     parse through all the triples before it can start interpreting the 
meaning of an rdf:member .
  - LDPRs that wish to refer to their LDPCs can do this in one relation 
with 
     { <.> ldp:contains <> . } this otherwise requires two relations 
     { <.> a ldp:Container; rdf:member <> }
  - ( very minor: it may reduce the need to import the rdf namespace )