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

On 5/31/13 12:48 PM, Henry Story wrote:
>
> On 31 May 2013, at 18:11, Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com 
> <mailto:lehors@us.ibm.com>> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> agree.
>
>>
>> I would suggest something like this instead:
>>
>> "relates an LDP Container to the resources it contains".
>
> Yes, I was hesitant about that way of expressing things, because it 
> seemed nearly circular.
>
>>
>> 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.
>
> Reuse is often done by inference. So one could add to the definition
>
> ldp:contains rdf:subPropertyOf rdf:member .
>
> Then one gets the benefits of aligning intuitions of those who have 
> understood rdf:member relation.
> But yes, in this case we use the concept ldp:contains in a very 
> specific way, and rdf:member covers
> much more ground.
+1


BTW --  it's rdfs:member :-)

Kingsley
>
>>
>> --
>> Arnaud  Le Hors - Software Standards Architect - IBM Software Group
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: "Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group Issue Tracker" 
>> <sysbot+tracker@w3.org <mailto:sysbot+tracker@w3.org>>
>> To: public-ldp-wg@w3.org <mailto: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 )
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> Social Web Architect
> http://bblfish.net/
>


-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen