Re: container types

> However, as domain vocabulary is mostly designed for use with 
non-information resources (??), 

I'm not sure what would lead you/anyone to that conclusion.

*Every* membership predicate aside from ldp:contains corresponds to a 
domain vocabulary term.  Those already existing, those yet to be invented 
too.  Even ldp:member (I hear the gears grinding, but think about it - if 
it's Basic, it uses ldp:contains, period... "not Basic", in part, means 
"not ldp:contains").

Maybe "domain vocabulary" is confusing as a term itself ... "domain" is an 
OSLC-defined term that roughly corresponds to "knowledge domain" or 
capability, in a very very general sense.  But what it really boils down 
to in this context is "not ldp:contains".  If I want to build a container 
of the versions of a document that already exists (concrete example: 
w3.org/TR/ldp), I'd probably use an existing well-established vocabulary 
like Dublin Core (e.g. dcterms:isVersionOf) for that relationship - which 
rules out a Basic container.


> this is rather implying that the information resources would also be 
non-information resources ... (??) 

Since the antecedent is false (IMO), the implication is no longer 
relevant.


Best Regards, John

Voice US 845-435-9470  BluePages
Tivoli OSLC Lead - Show me the Scenario