Re: ISSUE-81: Confusing membership* predicate names and other possible improvements

Hi Henry,

Because this isn't merely about creation I would suggest you use something 
like ldp:membershipRule rather than  ldp:creationRule.

There certainly are advantages at grouping all the pieces together, the 
question is whether the group is willing to rely on a blank node. Past 
discussions have indicated that it wasn't. I don't know whether this has 
changed. We'll see.

Arnaud  Le Hors - Software Standards Architect - IBM Software Group

Henry Story <> wrote on 10/14/2013 09:02:53 AM:

> From: Henry Story <>
> To:, 
> Date: 10/14/2013 09:03 AM
> Subject: ISSUE-81: Confusing membership* predicate names and other 
> possible improvements
> I have added the following to the wiki:
> wiki/ISSUE-81 
> This proposal is a suggestion for an improvement to build on top of 
> whatever comes out of Part I. This is a structural improvement that 
> would reduce the redundancy found in 1. The proposal is to not have 
> 3 relations from the LDPC, but rather have 1 relation from the LDPC 
> to a blank node which itself then has 3 relations.
> <> a ldp:Container;
>     ldp:creationRule [ ldp:subject <../card#me>;
>                        ldp:predicate foaf:knows;
>                        ldp:rangeSelector foaf:primaryTopic ] .

> The names for ldp:subject, ldp:predicate, ldp:rangeSelector, can be 
> taken to be those people prefer in Part 1 above.
> By default creation in an LDPC ?c of an LDPR ?r makes the following 
> statement true:
>  ?c ldp:created ?r .

> The creationRule is just the statement of a pragmatic consequence of
> creating a resource in that particular LDPC. There could be one or 
> more such rules, and so also the ldp:creationRule could be missing (
> a vanilla server? ) This makes it easier to understand what the 
> membershipXXX rules are about: they don't specify new membership 
> predicates, but they specify a rule that makes it possible to deduce
> some things from the existence of an ldp:created relation - and it 
> seems this groups wants the relation to be an if and only if 
> relation: that is that if the ldp:created relation is not to be 
> found but the other relations exist one can deduce the existence of 
> the ldp:created relation.
> This does not I think have the problems of monotonicty that were 
> found to be existing in the original ldp:membershipXXX relations.
> Social Web Architect

Received on Tuesday, 15 October 2013 01:27:37 UTC