Re: Editors' proposal for membership predicate names

> 
> p.s. I'm probably going LDPcrazy, but in the Terminology section of the spec draft it says for "Membership Triples" that it is "a set of triples in an LDPC's state that lists its members" ... Shouldn't this be LDPR .. ?
> 

Any reaction ?? 


So, I think that the membership triples are in the *LDPR* state ... (?) 


Here is another example from the spec.

"6.3.1 The representation of a LDPC must contain a set of membership triples following one of the consistent patterns from that definition."

I think in this case this should be containment triples ...

Roger


> 
> 
> On 14 Feb 2014, at 16:54, Steve Speicher wrote:
> 
>> Based on discussions on at last couple of WG meetings, it was discussed that the editors would come up with a proposal for better membership predicate names as the previous ones are a little dated with some of the recent terminology and concepts [1] .  Since we are low on time, the idea is to get a quick thumbs up/down on it at the call on Monday [2].
>> 
>> Here are the proposed changes:
>> 
>> ldp:containerResource    => ldp:membershipResource
>> 
>> ldp:containsRelation        => ldp:hasMemberRelation
>> 
>> ldp:containedByRelation => ldp:isMemberOfRelation
>> 
>> [1] - https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/default/ldp.html#terms
>> [2] - http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2014.02.17
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Steve Speicher
>