does the attached picture help this discussion ??
Roger
On 21 Feb 2014, at 14:10, Roger Menday wrote:
>
> 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)
>
