- From: Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 18:27:05 -0700
- To: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
- Cc: public-ldp-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <OF4DDEE5E2.6F616A9B-ON88257C05.000705D1-88257C05.0007F936@us.ibm.com>
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. Thanks. -- Arnaud Le Hors - Software Standards Architect - IBM Software Group Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote on 10/14/2013 09:02:53 AM: > From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net> > To: public-ldp-wg@w3.org, > 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: http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/ > 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 > http://bblfish.net/
Received on Tuesday, 15 October 2013 01:27:37 UTC