Re: Editors' proposal for membership predicate names

hi Steve, 

Thanks for your email.

Your proposal for 6.3.1 and 6.3.2 makes sense to me. 
6.3.2 essentially covers the Basic Container case .. 

I do see this issue in a number of places. For example, in the Terminology section, it defines "Membership predicate: The predicate of all a LDPC's membership triples.". 

In my mind, the membershipTriples are part of the LDP-RS and containment triples are part of the LDPC, and so, the definition above should say LDP-RS. 

(?)

Roger



On 20 Feb 2014, at 18:21, Steve Speicher wrote:

> 
> 
> - Steve Speicher
> 
> 
> On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 11:58 AM, Steve Speicher <sspeiche@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 11:03 AM, Roger Menday <roger.menday@uk.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> 
> (snip) 
> 
> 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 ...
> 
> 6.3.1 seems right to me, containment triple pattern is fixed as: (LDPC, ldp:contains, LDPR)
> 
> Correction.  6.3.1 is the HTTP GET section in LDP Containers [1].  I believe this is a place where we didn't properly catch a change for the new resolution.
> 
> Perhaps rewritten as 2 rules such:
> [[
> 6.3.1 The representation of a LDPC MUST include the containment triples.
> 
> 6.3.2 The representation of a LDPC MUST include the  membership triples following if the membership-constant-URI is the LDPC itself. (rest of previous 6.3.1)
> ]]
> 
> [1] - https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/default/ldp.html#ldpc-HTTP_GET
> 
> - Steve
>  
> (snip)