Re: What does "being a member" mean?

On 13 Nov 2013, at 20:21, Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com> wrote:

> Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote on 11/13/2013 09:34:24 AM:
> 
> > ...
> > > 
> > > So, as the spec stands, the members of a container are the 
> > resources listed as members. These are the resources listed using 
> > the membershipXXX stuff. Some of these may have been created by 
> > POSTing to the container some may not. Some may be LDPRs, some may 
> > not (binaries for example). 
> > > 
> > > In the case where one uses ldp:insertedContentRelation the member 
> > is the resource found using the object of that property in the 
> > POSTed resource. This actually was the whole point of adding this 
> > feature to the spec. Roger wanted to make zaza the cat the member of
> > his container as opposed to the information resource that talks about zaza, 
> > 
> > yes, but that is what is making the spec so hard to read, and use 
> > for clients. The membershipXXX speak as if
> > they were ways of getting the members of a container, whereas they 
> > can in fact set relations on any type
> > of resource whatsoever even if these have no relation to rdf:member-
> > ship whatsoever. 
> 
> You only say that because you have a different view of what a "member" is than what is currently in the spec. 

I am it is <http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#member>. That is not defined in the spec or the ontology.
Since one can deduce the "membership triples" from it using a rule such as
the one below it would seem the name is quite appropriate.

CONSTRUCT {
   ?subject ?relation ?object . 
} WHERE { 
    ?ldpc ldp:membershipSubject ?subject;
            ldp:membershipPredicate ?relation;
            ldp:membershipObject ?memberRelation;
            ldp:member ?resource .
 
   GRAPH ?resource {
      ?resource ?memberRelation ?object . 
   }
}

But if someone has a better name for this I am open to suggestions.


> 
> > 
> > In fact that is why I propose we define ldp:member as above. If we 
> > can find a term for the superclass of LDPRs
> > and LDPBinaries then my definition will work fine.
> > 
> 
> If you want to introduce a different type of relationship than what is currently considered membership in the spec you ought to find a new name for it. Otherwise you're only making things worse by overloading the term.

You mean when that this confuse talk with talk of "membership triples" that have 
nothing to do with membership anymore, since they can be relations such as { :me foaf:knows :you } ?
My feeling is that we should first try to work out what those "membership triples" are and find
perhaps a better name for them.


> --
> Arnaud  Le Hors - Software Standards Architect - IBM Software Group
> 
> 
> 

Social Web Architect
http://bblfish.net/

Received on Wednesday, 13 November 2013 20:39:48 UTC