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

On 1/25/14 3:07 AM, Henry Story wrote:
>>
>> Very true. What do you propose as a stable identifier for the LDP1.0 
>> interaction model as distinct from the resource itself?
>>
> ldp:Container should do . It  is a class whose intension sets the 
> criteria for selecting the members
> both actual and non actual that belong to it. The definition is 
> provided by the LDP spec.
> Being a member of the ldp:Container class is to behave the way the 
> spec says those resources
> should behave. On a GET they return a Graph, on a POST they create 
> something, etc...
>
> Hence there is no problem with
>
>  <> a ldp:Container .
>
> So you can also have something like
>
>  <> ldp:interaction ldp:Container .
>
> but that would just end up implying the first anyway.
>
>
> Henry

And for the sake of compromise we could also claim:

<http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#interaction>
<http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#equivalentProperty> 
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/link-relations.xhtml#profile> 
.

OR

<http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#interaction>
<http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#rdfs:subPropertyOf> 
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/link-relations.xhtml#profile> 
.


I would like to believe this shows how RDF [1] can solve this problem, 
since this really what (I believe) RDF addresses in a unique way.


[1] http://bit.ly/1dUSAFG -- RDF described using RDF.

-- 

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