Re: non-IRs, was Re: Editors' proposal for membership predicate names

On 2/24/14 9:44 AM, Sandro Hawke wrote:
> On 02/24/2014 09:26 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>> On 2/21/14 12:55 PM, Roger Menday wrote:
>>>
>>> hello Kingsley,
>>>
>>> Thanks for your feedback.
>>> I would like to think about your diagramming suggestions over the 
>>> weekend.
>>> But, I have a comment now on your point #2.
>>>
>>> My picture was the DirectContainer case.
>>> Here, all the boxes are Documents.
>>> So, there is nothing to change.
>>> (for the IndirectContainer case, we *will* have other shapes in the 
>>> picture I beleive)
>>>
>>> However ...
>>>
>>> MembershipTriple's link non-informational resources and 
>>> ContainerTriple's link information resources. But, in 
>>> a DirectContainer, the Document which is created is the object 
>>> position of the membershipTriple. Therefore the membershipTriple is 
>>> linking to an Information resource, which is a contradiction.
>>>
>>> My conclusion is that we shouldn't really have DirectContainers ...
>>>
>>> ?
>>> Roger
>>
>> Roger,
>>
>> I don't believe a document about "net worth" and what the term "net 
>> worth" denotes are one an the same, hence my suggestion about entity 
>> depictions. Naturally, I need a medium (e.g., a Web Document, Paper 
>> Document etc.) through which I perceive your "net worth" but that 
>> doesn't make the aforementioned perception medium (i.e., Document) 
>> the signifier (i.e., identifier) of your net worth.
>>
>> The eternal issue is that the perception medium (so called 
>> "information resource") and the signification mechanism (identifier) 
>> continue to be conflated.
>>
>
> This is another case where I think it clarifies things to split 
> Containers and Selections [1].    "Containers" manage information 
> resources, identified by URLs.    They're an interface to a web 
> hosting service, basically.    Selections involve collections of 
> resources in general, including non-information resources.
>
> In practice, in linked data, behind the scenes, each non-information 
> resource has an associated RDF Source (an information source, with a 
> URL), which is found by chopping off the fragment if necessary, and 
> following certain redirects, if necessary.   The current LDP specs get 
> things wrong by saying these are always 1-1, and that the 
> non-information resource is necessarily the Primary Subject of the 
> Information Resource. (Even worse, it says that every resource in a 
> container MUST use the same primary subject predicate, which is also 
> not a great plan.)
>
>          -- Sandro
>
>
>
> [1] https://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Collection_Types
+1

In my eyes, it's a massive problem if a spec claiming to be about RDF 
and  Linked Data [1][2] utilization doesn't actually demonstrate 
comprehension of either.

If this spec is about RDF and Linked Data it MUST reflect proper 
understanding of these of these items.

Links:

[1] http://bit.ly/1hKA3jE -- Linked Data
[2]  http://slidesha.re/1epEyZ1 -- Linked Data slide that's also a 
Linked Data demo (i.e., click on the Link and you enter a basic Linked 
Data tutorial).

-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter Profile: https://twitter.com/kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen