Fwd: 4.1.9 is obscure or too restrictive

The paragraph was worrying me too. Especially because it seems to imply
that triples have a preferred direction. Which shouldn't be the case
according to TimBL in http://dig.csail.mit.edu/breadcrumbs/node/72.

Reto


On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 4:06 PM, Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>wrote:

> I just came across this:
>
> [[
> 4.1.9 LDPRs must use at least one RDF triple to represent a link
> (relationship) to another resource. In other words, having the source
> resource’s URI as the subject and the target resource’s URI as the object
> of the triple representing the link (relationship) is enough and does not
> require the creation of an intermediate link resource to describe the
> relationship.
> ]]
> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/default/ldp.html#general
>
> This seems to be saying more than that there should be at least 1 triple
> in an LDPR.
>
> It seems to be saying that there must be at least one triple where the
> subject or the object link to a different resource which are in different
> documents. Or it is trying to say that IF  links can be made to other
> resource they only require one triple.
>
> I really don't know. Any clarifications from the editors on the intention
> of this passage?
>
> Henry
>
> A short message from my sponsors: Vive la France!
> Social Web Architect
> http://bblfish.net/
>
>