Re: ISSUE-75 Non-montonic - was: ISSUE-71: second bug tracking example

> So we want it to be the case that when we read 

For some values of 'we', i.e. I read the statement to assert broader 
consensus than I have seen evidence for to date.

> 
>   <> ldp:contains <member> .
> 
> we don't need any more relations to conclude that <member> was created 
by the 
> LDPC <>  . 

'created', sigh.  If I can read 'was created by' as 'is a member of' 
without changing your intent, OK so far.  If not, I start disagreeing 
here.  Since you later equate ldp:contains with "membership relations", my 
less create-centric phrasing should work.

>        ldp:creationRule [ subject <source>;  property ex:attachment ] .

Applying the same rationale as for my changes above, and taking 
inspiration from your later words, would ldp:memberRule work?  Because I 
think this should be every bit as useful for a read-only container 
(populated via out of band implementation means, or for other reasons) as 
it is for a "create-enabled" container.

If 'member' is too contrary to your purpose as I begin to think I might 
understand it, ldp:relationExistenceRule ?  I resisted the urge to stick 
Inference in there for several reasons, not the least of which being I 
think it's trivially easy to avoid the use of inferencing as this group 
would mean it in the implementation.


Best Regards, John

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