Re: On ISSUE-58: Property for asserting that complete description of members is included in LDPC representation

Hi John,

On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 7:50 PM, John Arwe <johnarwe@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> # The following is the representation of
> #                 *http://example.org/netWorth/nw1*<http://example.org/netWorth/nw1>
> /a1
> @prefix o:       <*http://example.org/ontology/*<http://example.org/ontology/>
> >.
>
> <a1>
>   a o:Stock;
>   o:value 10000.
>
> <*http://example.org/netWorth/nw1* <http://example.org/netWorth/nw1>>
> o:asset <a1>.
>
> Then Arnaud's example (including new headers) is valid, but ...wait for
> it... how would a cache know that <nw1,o:asset,a1> triple was part of <a1>
> rather than <nw1>?  I don't see that it can know without actually
> performing the retrieval action -- which is what this new header is trying
> to avoid/enable in the first place.  To push things to an extreme: how does
> the cache know from the
>
This issue of knowing which triples belong to which resource applies to
equally to all the four options, right ? Though we discuss it in context of
option D because of the additional claim that option D can be used with
HTTP Caches.

Still option D seem to be the best option and the second best being option
C. The (dis)advantage of the option C seems that this "inline-ness" is
represented in RDF data itself so that if a client persist this data and
process later on, it can make decisions based on this property. But it
seems that if this can be done at HTTP level as Pierre-Antoine explains
with caching / expiry  etc. that would be better.

Best Regards,
Nandana