Re: Getting to closure on the remaining issues - issue-92

On 24 Jan 2014, at 18:14, Alexandre Bertails <> wrote:

>>>>> In plain English: ldp:Container happens to be a class that can be used
>>>>> to denote the Container interaction model when used with
>>>>> rel=profile. What's wrong in that sentence?
>>>> What does it denote when it is not used with rel=profile?
>>> Then the behavior is not defined. It's ok because we're only
>>> interested in defining what it means when we use it with rel=profile,
>>> or when you use it as a class.
>> A URI refers to one thing. This is not a question of behaviour. That
>> is how URIs are defined.
>> [[
>>    A Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) provides a simple and extensible
>>    means for identifying a resource.
>> ]]
> I gave you the one declarative and universal meaning for
> ldp:Container: it denotes the LDPC interaction model when used with
> rel=profile, you're on your own for other rels.
> Does this introduce any contradiction with anything else?

yes, there is no such thing as "denoting something when used with ..."
Have you got a definition of that somewhere?

Some further supporting evidence from RDF Semantics:


This document does not take any position on the way that URI references may be composed from other expressions, e.g. from relative URIs or QNames; the semantics simply assumes that such lexical issues have been resolved in some way that is globally coherent, so that a single URI reference can be taken to have the same meaning wherever it occurs.

So imagine you have some other relation that is like profile but narrower, say an ldp:profile
then ldp:Container would have to still refer to the same thing in the relation below:

  <> ldp:profile ldp:Container .

which if we translate it using your grue like definition would come to

  <> is related by the ldp:profile relation to the thing denoting the ldp interaction if related by rel=profile, 
     but you're out of luck for other rels.

so here it would be 

  <> related by ldp:profile to we know not what.

What if someone then wants to write a vocabulary that describes interaction models?
Say they want to say of an interaction model that it supports POST and that this creates
new resources in some way,.... 

  ldp:Container interaction:methodSupported "GET", "PUT", "POST", "PATCH" .

following the above reasoning we have no idea what ldp:Container is referring to above.

Clearly this would go against all the semantic web reasoning layers that have been agreed
to in various groups at the W3C. 

  I am surprised you even think of presenting this as an argument!
You have just helped me  thump another stake in the heart 
of this rel=profile time consuming vampire .


Social Web Architect

Received on Friday, 24 January 2014 17:40:19 UTC