Re: Container of caviar (was: can of worms)

hello Henry,

So you like ldp:contains - that's fine. 
But, in that case, you do agree that containsRelation is then confusing  ? 

Roger


On 17 Jan 2014, at 14:25, Henry Story wrote:
> 
> On 17 Jan 2014, at 15:10, Roger Menday <roger.menday@uk.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> hello, 
>> 
>> Yes. We have overcome the all of the biggest obstacles. 
>> I look forward to seeing the updated spec.  
>> 
>> My email was only about choice of names. 
>> "can of worms" shouldn't be over-analysed. :) 
>> 
>> 
>> Current state (?) of important predicates:
>>  
>> LDPC -contains-> LDPR  
>> LDRC -containerResource-> [some resource]
>> LDPC -containsRelation-> [some predicate] 
>> LDPC -insertedContentRelation-> ... 
>> 
>> The first one relates the LDPC to its content document. 
>> And the other three were the ones previously known as membershipXXX 
>> 
>> I am attracted to the word "member" rather than "contain". I think I would also prefer something like "Document" in the link between LDPC and LDPR (memberDocument ?). 
> 
> I kind of agree that now we have ldp:contains, the previous ldp:membershipXXX relations lend to less confusion. This is not to say that there may not be a better name yet  than tge ldp:membershipXXX relations.
> 
> I am pretty happy with ldp:contains. The ldp ontology should explain the range and domains of ldp:contains, so I don't think it is necessary to add "Document" at the end of the relation.
> Futhermore, since an ldp:Container is a container, it makes sense that it ldp:contains things. 
> 
> Henry
> 
>> 
>> Roger
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 16 Jan 2014, at 18:23, Steve Speicher wrote:
>> 
>>> I believe that some of the current confusion could be resolved if we (the editors) have some time to pull things together in one area.  I think part of the recent discussion which seems to stem from people having different resolutions in their head and have missed some.  Perhaps also due to the fact that there are a number of resolutions in different wiki pages, minutes and other locations.   Not saying that where we landed couldn't be improved on, though I think it is better and due to time restrictions, perhaps as good as we get.  If I would prefer some other terms/names, I would have either -1 what we have or proposed something new.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> - Steve Speicher
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 9:36 AM, Roger Menday <Roger.Menday@uk.fujitsu.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> In the fog of recent discussion it seems that the naming of some of our predicates have become confusing again (or is it just me ... ?) We now have "contains" to point between LDPC and the member Document, as well as various predicates which include 'contain' (previously these were the membershipXX predicates).
>>> 
>>> I think I would quite like to return to something like the original membershipXX names, and then have ldp:membershipDocument instead of ldp:contains ...
>>> 
>>> Roger
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 
> Social Web Architect
> http://bblfish.net/
>