Re: Binary resources and containment triples

Like Sandro, my understanding is that (1) is what the spec requires, 
although (2) is permitted (explicitly via the "other triples" clause, 
implicitly via normative references).

wrt striking the "other triples" clause, honestly it found it's way in 
there (as well as similar ones in other places) in part because we found 
implementers reading normative requirements as limiting, i.e. where we say 
"you must do Y" they read "...and MUST NOT do anything else".  Hence I'm 
not crazy about removing it entirely, although it might be better placed 
in one of the "consequences of other specs" chapters.  OTOH if the WG 
decided to remove such strictly superfluous phrases entirely, I would not 
-1 it either.

"Normal" product devs do not live day to day in specification-land, 
especially nowadays, so I do have sympathy for the point of view that says 
at times we repeat things rather than relying on the dev "just trying to 
implement LDP" to exhaustively read and understand the full logical 
consequences of the transitive closure of all normative references.  Many 
spec readers != spec authors.

Best Regards, John

Voice US 845-435-9470  BluePages
Tivoli OSLC Lead - Show me the Scenario