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

Re: ldp-ISSUE-89 (ldp:xyz): Tie the interaction model with the LDP data model through the notion of Managed Resources [Linked Data Platform Spec]

From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 21:32:04 +0100
Message-Id: <4CFBCF07-A97E-42ED-8EBE-F0710EE8B2FC@bblfish.net>
To: "Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
Can we try to work on a definition of ldp:xyz that would be satisfactory to everyone. Here's a
first shot at this:

@prefix ldp: <http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#> .
@prefix rdf: <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#> .
@prefix rdfs: <http://www.w3.org//2000/01/rdf-schema#> .
@prefix skos: <http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#> .

The rdf for ldp:xyz could be the following:


ldp:xyz a rdf:Property;
  rdf:domain ldp:Container;
  rdf:range ldp:Resource; //<- this is intended to refer to the set of LDPRs and LDP Binaries. Find a name for it.  
  rdfs:comment """
    ldp:xyz relates an LDPC to the resources that it manages [link to the spec for Managed Resource] 
  """.



On 18 Nov 2013, at 17:19, Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote:

> ldp-ISSUE-89 (ldp:xyz): Tie the interaction model with the LDP data model through the notion of Managed Resources [Linked Data Platform Spec]
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/89
> 
> Raised by: Alexandre Bertails
> On product: Linked Data Platform Spec
> 
> Proposal: make `ldp:xyz` mandatory.
> 
> `ldp:xyz` as a URI is left open for discussion, this issue is about the requirements and the invariants for the needed feature.
> 
> This proposal has *no intention* to mix with the notion of membership as defined by the specification at the time I created this issue.
> 
> The idea for `ldp:xyz` is to answer the question of what resources are *managed* by an LDPC (it's not about membership). *Being managed* is defined by any successful REST interaction (with side-effects) with an LDPC/LDPR, eg. creation through POST on LDPC or deletion through DELETE on LDPR.
> 
> Corollary: the presence/absence of `ldp:xyz` triples is directly derived from the REST interactions. And they entail the possible interactions.
> 
> Note: the membership relations can be derived from an LDP model having `ldp:xyz` at its heart, as showed by Henry at http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Issue-88#make_ldp:member_mandatory (where Henry uses `ldp:member` instead of `ldp:xyz`).




Social Web Architect
http://bblfish.net/
Received on Monday, 18 November 2013 20:32:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:11:53 UTC