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

On Jan 24, 2014 7:37 PM, "Henry Story" <henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote:
>
>
> On 24 Jan 2013, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote as shown in the archive
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2014Jan/0121.html
> > On 24 Jan 2014, at 18:38, Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On 24 Jan 2014, at 18:14, Alexandre Bertails <bertails@w3.org> 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:
> >>
> >> [[ http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/#urisandlit
> >>
> >> 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 .
> >
> > And I am surprised that you think it's reasonable to use the same
identifier for a graph representing an LDP container AND the protocol for
interacting with it.
>
>
> You mean that <http://example/> in say { <http://example> a ldp:Container
. } would refer to a Graph?
>
> Only if the Graph can be a temporal thing that can change over time,
which is not the
> strict definition of Graph in the RDF specs.
>
> The representation returned by <http://example/> is a Graph, but you must
not
> confuse the representation with the resource. The resource is something
that
> has an interaction model, and that can change over time, whilst keeping
its
> identity of course  :-) .

Very true. What do you propose as a stable identifier for the LDP1.0
interaction model as distinct from the resource itself?

> The representation returned is something that can
> be interpreted in terms of a graph, and whose content describes a set of
> possibilities. In the case of { <> a ldp:Container }, the graph returned
> as the representation describes the resource as being one of the objects
which
> can be interacted with according to the ldp spec.
>
> This is just basic REST: Representation of State Transfer. The
representation is
> a represntation of a _Resource_ referred to by a URI.
>
> Henry
>
>
> >>
> >>   Henry
> >>
> >>
> >> Social Web Architect
> >> http://bblfish.net/
> >>
> >
> >