- From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
- Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 23:07:54 +0200
- To: John Arwe <johnarwe@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: "public-ldp-wg@w3.org" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <9CA5A8E7-9C7A-409D-9E4A-07D2E7DA756A@bblfish.net>
On 31 May 2013, at 22:30, John Arwe <johnarwe@us.ibm.com> wrote: > > By-reference is totally different! That is exactly what I want to > > not have confused with ldp:contains. > > My gut reaction is: if a client listing a container's membership is limited to finding resources newly created by/through HTTP interactions with the container, then this spec applies to zero of my use cases. It completely ceases to be an interesting spec in anything aside from a purely academic exercise, and I don't get paid for those (oh that it were so! :-) It is not academic. The Atom Protocol uses this type of relation and does a huge amount with it. The ldp:contains relation is a very simple relation that is close to the RFC4287 atom:entry. http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4287#section-1.1 You don't do everything with ldp:contains. In atom you put your data in the content of an entry. With LDP we are just semanticising this: you put your content in the LDPRs that you created on POSTing to the LDPCs. You get all the flexibility out of this that you wish. > > It cannot even handle a simple query result from a db query. Queries are covered by other specs: SPARQL for example. In a later spec it would be interesting to get the SPARQL aligned with LDP. > Now maybe there is something in all changes you've proposed that I've missed, if so by all means point it out. The ldp:contains relation is just a way to help us distinguish the specific conainment relation from other relaitons. rdf:member is too general, this proposal is just to reduce the inferencing required. Other issues I brought up are independently motivated. > > > I have no problem with the notion that a container exposes that smaller member list, optionally. > But limiting it to that, not AT ALL interested/ing. Ah I never said one should limit relations in an ldpc to ldp:contains. If other relations make sense then that's ok. > > > Best Regards, John > > Voice US 845-435-9470 BluePages > Tivoli OSLC Lead - Show me the Scenario > > Social Web Architect http://bblfish.net/
Received on Friday, 31 May 2013 21:08:28 UTC