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

On 1/25/14 11:22 AM, Henry Story wrote:
>> 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>  .
> You can't get that with the current definition of rel=profile, because ldp:interaction would relate a resource and a class,
> whereas rel=profile wants to relate a representation and something. And those are quite different types of relations.
> Indeed that was my argument for why rel=profile can't do the required job.
> seehttp://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2014Jan/0090.html
>
>> >
>> >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.
> RDF is flexible, but 2+2=4 and logic does constrain one to being consistent. Which is a good thing in
> the long term. Logic is to the Web of data as physics is to the building of skyscrapers.
>

If we have a comprehensible description of the :profile relation, I am 
sure I can easily construct something sensible in RDF.

I wish I understood what the "profile" relation is supposed mean in the 
context of data interaction. Personally, I see this as basically being a 
flag, so a subPropertyOf relation can work when the super property in 
question is utterly superfluous.

-- 

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