W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ldp-wg@w3.org > November 2013

Re: LDP Agenda for 18 November

From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2013 13:16:16 +0100
Cc: Linked Data Platform WG <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <F7FD3946-E814-4B54-A7B5-9AC3139534DC@bblfish.net>
To: Arnaud LeHors <lehors@us.ibm.com>

On 16 Nov 2013, at 13:04, Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote:

> On 15 Nov 2013, at 19:50, Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>> Here is the agenda for Monday's call. We have a lot to talk about so rest well this weekend. :-) 
>> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2013.11.18
>> --
>> Arnaud  Le Hors - Software Standards Architect - IBM Software Group
> Hi, I'd like a quick initial discussion of ldp:member ISSUE-87, just
> so that at least the group is clear about what the intended meaning of this is
> so that the arguments in the following pages don't get wasted on misunderstandings.
>   http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Member
>> Proposal regarding ISSUE-88: Lost link
>> 	 Proposed: Close ISSUE-88 by making ldp:created mandatory when ldp:insertedContentRelation is different from ldp:MemberSubject
>> 	 Section 5.4.14
>> 	 Related discussion: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013Nov/0035.html
>> 	 ISSUE-88: Lost link
> There is another potential solution to the problem that was mentioned.
> I have written up the two solutions on a wiki dedicated to this issue:
>  http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Issue-88

>> [edit]Proposal regarding ISSUE-87: Membership triples modification
>> 	 Proposed: Close ISSUE-87 by agreeing to do nothing: if the server allows the modification, it is up to the server to decide whether any other changes should be made.
> I wrote up the details of the causes of why this issue arises on the wiki page
> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Issue-87

Also ISSUE-88 and ISSUE-87 are related. One cannot choose the "Proposed solution" in 88,
ie to "make ldp:created mandatory when ldp:insertedContentRelation is different from ldp:MemberSubject 
and do nothing about 87. The proposed solution in 88 implies that the client must deduce
ldp:member relations from the "membership properties". So anyone changing these MUST be aware of the
consequences of these changes. Ie something must be said about 88.

>> 	 ISSUE-87: Membership triples modification
>> [edit]Discuss Henry's issues
>> 	 ISSUE-84 ldp:member
>> 	 ISSUE-85 membershipXXX rules
>> 	 ISSUE-86 "membership triples" misnamed
> Social Web Architect
> http://bblfish.net/

Social Web Architect
Received on Saturday, 16 November 2013 12:16:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:17:46 UTC