To spec editors - regarding possibly redundant rdf:type definition of containers in examples

The specification says that an LDPR cannot be just an ldp:Container; it
must be either of a ldp:BasicContainer, ldp:DirectContainer, or
ldp:IndirectContainer. Since these three classes are expected to extend
ldp:Container, we think it is questionable to define resources in the
examples with both ldp:Conatiner AND one of the three types.

For example, take a look at example 3 in Section 6:

<>
   a ldp:Container, ldp:BasicContainer;


We suppose there is nothing invalid or illegal about this redundancy,
but... what's the point of the additional redundant triple? If it is a
BasicContainer, DirectContainer, or IndirectContainer, can we not always
assume it is also an ldp:Container without the need for another triple
explicitly stating that?

-- 
Cody Burleson