- From: Steve Speicher <sspeiche@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 16:16:21 -0500
- To: "public-ldp-wg@w3.org" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAOUJ7JrPyN_8R1NkJbx+ZkdheihM8CF1XomYQg4J6ciEmOkuSQ@mail.gmail.com>
Last meeting [1] we had a discussion and some proposals for names of the various types of containers [2]. Proposed new names for these types of LDPCs: LDP Basic Container (LDP-BC) => no change LDP Direct Container (LDP-DC) => no change LDP Indirect Container (LDP-IC) => LDP Container (LDPC), combine with LDPC Additionally (using the new terminology), a proposal to express the class hierarchy would be: (removing LDP prefixes, insert your own rdfs:subClassOf if it helps) Resource +- NR +- RS +- Container +- DC +- BC Since a LDP-DC is just a refinement of LDPC, limiting the inserted content relationship ...and therefore membership is more direct Since a LDP-BC is just a refinement of LDP-DC, limiting the member resource and membership triples ...and therefore the capabilities are fairly basic compared to others. Called it constant or fixed seemed to imply other limitations that aren't true. I can also draw (if needed) a simple Venn diagram that shows this progression of capabilities and constraints. [1] - http://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/ldp/2014-02-10 [2] - https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/default/ldp.html#terms Warmest regards, Steve Speicher
Received on Friday, 14 February 2014 21:16:49 UTC