Re: the state of ldp-patch, and a procedural proposal

Hi Alexandre,

The fact that LDPCs are LDPRs isn't new. It was that way in the member 
submission LDP is based on.

I don't know whether there are problems with that but changing it would 
require a very careful review to determine the implications because, for 
one thing, we rely on that for LDPCs to have paging.

Regards.
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Software Standards Architect - IBM Software Group


Alexandre Bertails <bertails@w3.org> wrote on 10/18/2013 12:23:48 PM:

> From: Alexandre Bertails <bertails@w3.org>
> To: Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org>, Linked Data Platform WG 
> <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>, 
> Date: 10/18/2013 12:24 PM
> Subject: Re: the state of ldp-patch, and a procedural proposal
> 
> Hi guys,
> 
> I'm bringing here some parts of a discussion that happened on
> public-ldp-patch@w3.org, as Andy brought my attention on 5.2.1 from
> the LDP spec.
> 
> On 10/18/2013 12:20 PM, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> > On 18/10/13 16:46, Alexandre Bertails wrote:
> >> On 10/18/2013 11:05 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> >>  > On 18/10/13 15:24, Alexandre Bertails wrote:
> >>  >> On 10/18/2013 10:13 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> >>  >>> On 18/10/13 03:57, Alexandre Bertails wrote:
> >>  >>>
> >>  >>>> General remark: Linked Data (in LDP) is different from general 
RDF:
> >>  >>>> the data lives in "small" HTTP documents, not in "big" RDF 
store.
> >>  >>>
> >>  >>> Hmm - collections have the potential to be large and, in 
general,
> >>  >>> planning on "small" seems to fail the test of real use!
> >>  >>
> >>  >> Collections as in LDPC, yes, that is true. I was talking about 
LDPRs.
> >>  >
> >>  > If LDPC are a subclass of LDPR ... :-)
> >>
> >> It's true that the ontology says so, but I don't think that there is 
a
> >> subtyping relationship in practice. The spec itself does not define 
an
> >> LDPC as a refinement for an LDPR: it discriminates the two cases.
> >
> > In the ED:
> > https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/default/ldp.html#ldpc-general
> > 5.2.1
> > """
> > A Linked Data Platform Container MUST also be a conforming Linked Data
> > Platform Resource.
> > """
> 
> So the spec does define a subtype relationship explicitly, and I do
> remember old discussions about that... But I don't see what purpose
> that rule actually serves. And I fail to understand what it means to
> comply with 5.2.1.
> 
> Under 5.2.1, I would expect the semantics for LDPC to be a refinement
> of the semantics for LDPR. Instead, I see some conflicts, a big one
> being PUT for example. Maybe the initial intent became wrong while the
> semantics of LDPR and LDPC diverged?
> 
> Can somebody tell me why this constraint was added?
> What does it mean exactly?
> Is it still valid?
> Can it be removed? (along with [[ ldp:Container rdfs:subClassOf 
> ldp:Resource ]])
> 
> Alexandre.
> 
> > (whether this is a good idea in the case of patch is an interesting
> > question)
> >
> >      Andy
> >
> >
> 
>