- From: Cody Burleson <cody.burleson@base22.com>
- Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 15:14:18 -0600
- To: Steve Speicher <sspeiche@gmail.com>
- Cc: Linked Data Platform WG <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAJM-Rdp=sqSfW=0194uEVDG-6oSuwUGXRZddndiYpB0Fpc8CSA@mail.gmail.com>
Right! So, that's 3 additional triples for each container. Though we reluctantly accept that it may currently be necessary as we've written the spec, it doesn't feel too good. In our world-view, we would not need inferencing to tell us that the variants of an LDPC are also LDPRs or that any single variant is also an ldp:Container. In any query we formulated on the client side, it's not too much for us to put two and two together. I don't know which is better. To do the extra work on the client or store a bunch of redundant triples. - Cody On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 3:03 PM, Steve Speicher <sspeiche@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 4:00 PM, Cody Burleson <cody.burleson@base22.com>wrote: > >> That makes sense, thanks! >> >> But given that logic, mustn't we also need to specify that it is an >> ldp:Resource? >> >> For example: >> >> <> >> a ldp:Resource, ldp:Container, ldp:BasicContainer; >> >> >> Thoughts? >> > > touché > > Actually yes but ldp:RDFResource also ;). Perhaps we need that augmented > rule. What do you think? > > Thanks, > Steve Speicher > > >> >> >> >> On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Steve Speicher <sspeiche@gmail.com>wrote: >> >>> >>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Cody Burleson >> Enterprise Web Architect, Base22 >> Mobile: +1 (214) 537-8782 >> Skype: codyburleson >> Email: cody@base22.com >> Blog: codyburleson.com >> >> * <http://base22.com>*Please be advised that I check and respond to mail >> on the following Central Standard Time schedule: >> 9:00 am, 12:00 pm, 3:00 pm, and 6:00 pm >> >> *Check my free/busy time. >> <http://www.google.com/calendar/embed?src=cody.burleson%40base22.com&ctz=America/Chicago%20>* >> >> >> > -- Cody Burleson Enterprise Web Architect, Base22 Mobile: +1 (214) 537-8782 Skype: codyburleson Email: cody@base22.com Blog: codyburleson.com * <http://base22.com>*Please be advised that I check and respond to mail on the following Central Standard Time schedule: 9:00 am, 12:00 pm, 3:00 pm, and 6:00 pm *Check my free/busy time. <http://www.google.com/calendar/embed?src=cody.burleson%40base22.com&ctz=America/Chicago%20>*
Received on Monday, 10 February 2014 21:15:06 UTC