Re: ldp-ISSUE-89 (ldp:xyz): Tie the interaction model with the LDP data model through the notion of Managed Resources [Linked Data Platform Spec]

Hi,

On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 3:32 PM, Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>wrote:

> Can we try to work on a definition of ldp:xyz that would be satisfactory
> to everyone. Here's a
> first shot at this:
>
> @prefix ldp: <http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp#> .
> @prefix rdf: <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#> .
> @prefix rdfs: <http://www.w3.org//2000/01/rdf-schema#> .
> @prefix skos: <http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#> .
>
> The rdf for ldp:xyz could be the following:
>
>
> ldp:xyz a rdf:Property;
>   rdf:domain ldp:Container;
>   rdf:range ldp:Resource; //<- this is intended to refer to the set of
> LDPRs and LDP Binaries. Find a name for it.
>   rdfs:comment """
>     ldp:xyz relates an LDPC to the resources that it manages [link to the
> spec for Managed Resource]
>   """.
>

This doesn't help me as I'm mostly interested in what the details of what
"relates" and "it manages" mean? From that, it should fall out what "xyz"
should be.

Do you have a link to one of the wiki pages you created that defines "spec
for Managed Resource"?  The entire LDP spec is about "managed resources"
today...LDPRs, LDPCs, binary resources, etc.

Questions this issue/proposal for ldp:xyz should answer which would help
find the right name for it:

  - When should a triple of the form <ldpc, ldp:xyz, ?resource> be created?
 I would assume when a resource is created by POSTing its representation to
a container.
    - When creating a non-LDPR resource, a 2nd LDPR may be created...are
there 2 triples of the form: <ldpc, ldp:xyz, ?nonLDPR> and <ldpc, ldp:xyz,
?LDPR> ?

 - Can someone PATCH ADD <ldpc, ldp:xyz, ?resource> ?  Does the server need
to fixup any other membership triples?

 - Does this ldp:xyz need to be listed explicitly in the result of a GET on
a LDPC or can it be inferred from non-member properties?  In other words,
is it required?

 - Does this <ldpc, ldp:xyz, ?resource> triple need to exist for EVERY
member resource that is a member of the LDPC? or under what conditions is
it needed (created, created by a certain means -- POSTing to LDPC, what to
do with existing large data sources)?

 - What happens to the triple <ldpc, ldp:xyz, ?resource> when a DELETE is
done on ?resource ?

Perhaps there are more.

- Steve


>
> On 18 Nov 2013, at 17:19, Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group Issue
> Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote:
>
> > ldp-ISSUE-89 (ldp:xyz): Tie the interaction model with the LDP data
> model through the notion of Managed Resources [Linked Data Platform Spec]
> >
> > http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/89
> >
> > Raised by: Alexandre Bertails
> > On product: Linked Data Platform Spec
> >
> > Proposal: make `ldp:xyz` mandatory.
> >
> > `ldp:xyz` as a URI is left open for discussion, this issue is about the
> requirements and the invariants for the needed feature.
> >
> > This proposal has *no intention* to mix with the notion of membership as
> defined by the specification at the time I created this issue.
> >
> > The idea for `ldp:xyz` is to answer the question of what resources are
> *managed* by an LDPC (it's not about membership). *Being managed* is
> defined by any successful REST interaction (with side-effects) with an
> LDPC/LDPR, eg. creation through POST on LDPC or deletion through DELETE on
> LDPR.
> >
> > Corollary: the presence/absence of `ldp:xyz` triples is directly derived
> from the REST interactions. And they entail the possible interactions.
> >
> > Note: the membership relations can be derived from an LDP model having
> `ldp:xyz` at its heart, as showed by Henry at
> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Issue-88#make_ldp:member_mandatory (where
> Henry uses `ldp:member` instead of `ldp:xyz`).
>
>
>
>
> Social Web Architect
> http://bblfish.net/
>
>
>