ISSUE-79 ldp:contains

On 31 May 2013, at 22:30, John Arwe <> 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.

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

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

Received on Friday, 31 May 2013 21:08:28 UTC