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

On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Cody Burleson <cody.burleson@base22.com>wrote:

> 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?
>

Hey Cody,

We have this redundancy due to the following rule [1]:

[[
5.2.9 LDP servers must not require LDP clients to implement inferencing in
order to recognize the subset of content defined by LDP. Other
specifications built on top of LDP may require clients to implement
inferencing [RDF-CONCEPTS]. The practical implication is that all content
defined by LDP must be explicitly represented.
]]

We could decide to augment this rule, to say something of the spirit of
"except in the case of ..."

[1] -
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/default/ldp.html#ldpr-gen-noinferencing

Regards,
Steve Speicher



>
>
> --
> Cody Burleson
>
>