Hi,
I'd not like to get this discussion dying without getting some
conclusions from all members of the project.
On 04/06/13 19:39, Raffaele Palmieri wrote:
I would have said container, but the meaning gived to this term in ldp
draft's W3C is different by the actual concept of context in Marmotta.
Though I think that there are intersections between context and ldp
container, conceptually they are two ways to assemble triples, the
latter introduces some strong constraints for membership and is the
medium to create and access resources.
Conceptually maybe, but not formally:
- a context/graph is a quad as <g,s,p,o>
- a ldp:Container is a triple as <c,m,s>
where m is the membership predicated (rdfs:member by default right now).
Actually my first implementation of LDP was under the assumption that
every container was also a context/graph. Although at the end I arrived
to the conclusion that it may be too complex, this could be true, but
not the other way (not all graphs would be a ldp:Container). Therefore,
since LDP is not defined in terms of SPARQL, personally I'd prefer not
to use container for describing contexts/graphs.
Cheers,
P.S.: this refreshes that I'd need to put effort again on getting
seriously back to LDP stuff in Marmotta; I hope to have some more time
in July...
for the moment +1 for graph.
Good; thanks for your opinion on this.
Cheers,
--
Sergio Fernández
