Re: What does "being a member" mean?

On 11/11/2013 12:36 PM, Steve Battle wrote:
> I thought that "being an LDPR" meant "being a member of an LDPC".
> Questions about Barbers and people who don't shave themselves
> notwithstanding, there's at least one LDPC, and hence an LDPR by
> implication, that is not a member of a LDPC.

If a person goes to that Barber (POST on LDPC), the Barber may accept
to take care of his mustache (2XX status code), and then claims that
the mustache now belongs to him (ldp:created). The mustache is now
managed by that Barber. Now the person can claim his mustache back
(HTTP DELETE) then the Barber does not manage it anymore (ldp:created

The real question was: am I interacting with this Barber and his
managed mustaches or something else? If not, then we cannot say
anything and it's fine.

The membershipXXX thing would be something like that: the Barber takes
a picture of the mustache and put it on the store front. That does not
change the Barber's business (managing mustaches) but still provides
some value. It has nothing to do with what interactions are allowed by
the Barber, and it is not part of the Barber's core business.


> Steve.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alexandre Bertails []
> Sent: 11 November 2013 16:49
> To: Linked Data Platform WG
> Subject: What does "being a member" mean?
> Guys,
> I think we have a problem with semantics :-)
> Can somebody tell me what "being a member" means?
> I thought that "being an LDPR" meant "being a member of an LDPC".
> How is that different from "being managed by an LDPC"? And from
> "ldp:created"?
> Are the LDP interactions driven by "being a member" or by "being an
> Is the notion of membership achieved through membershipXXX? If not, what's
> the name for the feature captured by the membershipXXX relations?
> If a POST succeed, does it mean that the new resource is created, or
> managed, or a member of the LDPC? What about a binary resource then, as
> it's currently not considered as an LDPC?
> Sorry if those are obvious questions, but when I hear the conversations we
> have in the meetings, it looks pretty confused :-/
> Alexandre.

Received on Monday, 11 November 2013 18:15:00 UTC