Re: ISSUE-37 WAS:Proposal for containers

One argument against introducing ldp:contains or any such new predicate is 
that we want to encourage reuse and this doesn't.
I'm not really sure this is independent of ISSUE-37. As the draft stands 
it only supports composition and if that's all we end up with there won't 
be any confusion about what rdfs:member is about, will there?
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Software Standards Architect - IBM Software Group


Nandana Mihindukulasooriya <nmihindu@fi.upm.es> wrote on 01/31/2013 
10:31:31 AM:

> From: Nandana Mihindukulasooriya <nmihindu@fi.upm.es>
> To: "public-ldp-wg@w3.org" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>, 
> Date: 01/31/2013 10:33 AM
> Subject: Re: ISSUE-37 WAS:Proposal for containers
> 
> Hi Steve,
> 
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 6:20 PM, Steve Battle 
<steve.battle@sysemia.co.uk
> > wrote:
> 
> My proposal is then:
> 
> 1) To specify ldp:contains (alternatively ldp:owns, ldp:manages) as the
> DEFAULT composition predicate. See section 5.2.5
> 2) Rename ldp:membershipPredicate as ldp:compositionPredicate, to 
clarify
> that this is refers to composition rather than aggregation.
> 3) Change EXAMPLE 1 to use ldp:contains, and EXAMPLE 5 to use something
> other than rdfs:member
> 
> Yes, I think in several previous threads people agreed that 
> rdfs:member might not be the best predicate to use for composition 
> and it could lead to confusions. 
> 
> IMHO, we could open a separate issue (as this can be 
> settled independently from ISSUE-37) on the tracker to "change the 
> default predicate of an LDPC" to any of the three that the WG  
> agrees on. This way it would be easier to see whether people agree 
> or not with this proposal and also we could do the necessary 
> modifications to the specification if people agree. 
> 
> Best Regards,
> Nandana