Re: LDPR vs LDPC interaction models

On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 6:41 AM, Sergio Fernández <
sergio.fernandez@salzburgresearch.at> wrote:

> Hi Steve,
>
> we appreciate your time. See my comments inline.
>
>
> On 25/02/14 19:05, Steve Speicher wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 5:52 AM, Sergio Fernández <
>> sergio.fernandez@salzburgresearch.at> wrote:
>>
>>> in our current implementation of the specification in Apache Marmotta
>>> [1], besides some other minor interpretation issues, we do not really
>>> understand what Section 6.4.5 [2] aims to describe about honoring the
>>> LDPR
>>> and LDPC interaction models. From the current spec, it is not clear what
>>> those "interaction models" actually define, and what the difference
>>> between
>>> both is. Could you please clarify this point?
>>>
>>
>> I will give the editors an action to improve on this section, let me put
>> in
>> it simplest terms and the intent:
>> - LDPRs will only have interaction models of LDPRs.  It makes no sense to
>> have in the
>> - LDPCs could be have as LDPRs or LDPCs.  If an LDPC is created by sending
>> a request entity body a LDPC and using the "Link: rel=type href=
>> http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#Resource", then that means it behaves as it
>> doesn't know about LDPC section.  Meaning things like POSTing to it don't
>> create members and update membership/containment triples or that when a
>> contained resource is deleted, the containment triple is removed.
>>
>
> I think I get it, although I'm not totally sure to understand the
> motivation behind such behavior. Basically that's way to create LDPC with
> limited capabilities, not accepting new members after its creation or data
> about deleted members.
>
> Is that correct?  OK, we'll think about how to address it's implementation.
>

Sergio,

Sounds like you have it.  The scenario that this was intended to support
was where some existing LDPCs were archived or snapshots (immutable
version) created.  These would have links (containment and membership) to
various resources.  These new copies of LDPCs would still be GETable but
would become plain-ole RDF Sources (in new LDP terminology).  This is what
was presented as motivating scenarios to the WG in [1].

[1] - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013Nov/0140.html

Regards,
Steve Speicher


>
> Improving that section may help for sure.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> --
> Sergio Fernández
> Senior Researcher
> Knowledge and Media Technologies
> Salzburg Research Forschungsgesellschaft mbH
> Jakob-Haringer-Straße 5/3 | 5020 Salzburg, Austria
> T: +43 662 2288 318 | M: +43 660 2747 925
> sergio.fernandez@salzburgresearch.at
> http://www.salzburgresearch.at
>