--- a/ldp.html Tue Jul 09 18:13:39 2013 -0400
+++ b/ldp.html Tue Jul 09 20:40:55 2013 -0400
@@ -1084,6 +1084,8 @@
triples whose subject is the LDPC resource itself.
</p>
+ <!-- @@@ TODO: ISSUE-72 sample for membershipObject-->
+
<div id="ldpc-member_data" class="rule">5.1.1 Container Member Information</div>
<em>This section is non-normative</em>
<p>In many – perhaps most – applications
@@ -1264,6 +1266,8 @@
</p>
</section>
+ <!-- @@@ TODO: ISSUE-72 new section just for membershipObject?-->
+
<section>
<h2 id="ldpc-general">General</h2>
<p>The Linked Data Platform does not define how clients
@@ -1354,6 +1358,8 @@
scenarios, re-using URIs creates ambiguities for clients that are best avoided.
</div>
+ <!-- @@@ TODO: ISSUE-72 rules for membershipObject-->
+
</section>
<section>
@@ -1606,6 +1612,22 @@
it MAY add other triples as well.
</div>
+ <!-- @@@ TODO: ISSUE-72 creation requirements with membershipObject
+
+ - do we need to handle membershipPredicateInverse with membershipObject (my head hurts)?
+ - we don't have membershipPredicateInverse in samples/intro, treat membershipObject same?
+ - what happens when a client POSTs w/o the triple to indicate membershipObject, guess we
+ just default to if mO is omitted (ie server gets to pick)
+ - since we have ldp:membershipSubject and ldp:membershipPredicate which help a client know
+ what is used to determine membership....ldp:membershipObject is *different* in that it
+ tells clients what triple to insert of the form:
+ <> {membershipObject} <#me>.
+ - do we need to make rules about POSTed triples like:
+ <> {mO} <http://someotherserver.com/foo>.
+ these seem not like intended behavior but "could" work
+
+ -->
+
</section>
--- a/ldp.ttl Tue Jul 09 18:13:39 2013 -0400
+++ b/ldp.ttl Tue Jul 09 20:40:55 2013 -0400
@@ -119,6 +119,15 @@
rdfs:label "membershipSubject";
rdfs:range rdf:Property.
+:membershipObject
+ a rdf:Property;
+ rdfs:comment "Indicates which triple in a POSTed resource indicates what should be used as the object for the membership triple's object.";
+ vs:term_status "unstable";
+ rdfs:domain :Container;
+ rdfs:isDefinedBy :;
+ rdfs:label "membershipObject";
+ rdfs:range rdf:Property.
+
:nextPage
a rdf:Property;
rdfs:comment "From a known page, how to indicate the next or last page as rdf:nil.";
@@ -127,6 +136,7 @@
rdfs:isDefinedBy :;
rdfs:label "nextPage";
rdfs:range rdfs:Resource.
+
:Page
a rdfs:Class;
--- /dev/null Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000
+++ b/ldpbusted.html Tue Jul 09 20:40:55 2013 -0400
@@ -0,0 +1,177 @@
+<!DOCTYPE html>
+<html>
+ <head>
+ <title>Linked Data Platform 1.0</title>
+ <meta http-equiv='Content-Type' content='text/html;charset=utf-8'/>
+ <!--
+ === NOTA BENE ===
+ For the three scripts below, if your spec resides on dev.w3 you can check them
+ out in the same tree and use relative links so that they'll work offline,
+ -->
+ <script src='https://www.w3.org/Tools/respec/respec-w3c-common' class='remove' async></script>
+ <script class='remove'>
+ var respecConfig = {
+ // specification status (e.g. WD, LCWD, NOTE, etc.). If in doubt use ED.
+ specStatus: "ED",
+
+ // the specification's short name, as in http://www.w3.org/TR/short-name/
+ shortName: "ldp",
+
+ // if your specification has a subtitle that goes below the main
+ // formal title, define it here
+ // subtitle : "an excellent document",
+
+ // if you wish the publication date to be other than today, set this
+ // publishDate: "2009-08-06",
+
+ // if the specification's copyright date is a range of years, specify
+ // the start date here:
+ // copyrightStart: "2005"
+
+ // if there is a previously published draft, uncomment this and set its YYYY-MM-DD date
+ // and its maturity status
+ previousPublishDate: "2013-03-07",
+ previousMaturity: "FPWD",
+ previousURI: "http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/WD-ldp-20130307/",
+
+ // if there a publicly available Editor's Draft, this is the link
+ edDraftURI: "http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/hg/ldp.html",
+
+ // if this is a LCWD, uncomment and set the end of its review period
+ // lcEnd: "2009-08-05",
+
+ // if you want to have extra CSS, append them to this list
+ // it is recommended that the respec.css stylesheet be kept
+ //extraCSS: ["https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/css/respec.css"],
+
+ // editors, add as many as you like
+ // only "name" is required
+ editors: [
+ { name: "Steve Speicher", url: "http://stevespeicher.blogspot.com",
+ company: "IBM Corporation", companyURL: "http://ibm.com/" },
+ { name: "John Arwe", url: "https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/mydeveloperworks/groups/service/html/allcommunities?userid=120000CAW7",
+ company: "IBM Corporation", companyURL: "http://ibm.com/" },
+ {name: "Ashok Malhotra", url: "ashok.malhotra@oracle.com",
+ company: "Oracle Corporation", companyURL: "http://www.oracle.com" },
+ ],
+
+ // authors, add as many as you like.
+ // This is optional, uncomment if you have authors as well as editors.
+ // only "name" is required. Same format as editors.
+
+ //authors: [
+ // { name: "Your Name", url: "http://example.org/",
+ // company: "Your Company", companyURL: "http://example.com/" },
+ //],
+
+ // name of the WG
+ wg: "Linked Data Platform Working Group",
+
+ // URI of the public WG page
+ wgURI: "http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp",
+
+ // name (without the @w3c.org) of the public mailing to which comments are due
+ wgPublicList: "public-ldp-wg",
+
+ // URI of the patent status for this WG, for Rec-track documents
+ // !!!! IMPORTANT !!!!
+ // This is important for Rec-track documents, do not copy a patent URI from a random
+ // document unless you know what you're doing. If in doubt ask your friendly neighbourhood
+ // Team Contact.
+ wgPatentURI: "http://www.w3.org/2004/01/pp-impl/55082/status",
+ doRDFa: "1.1",
+ };
+ </script>
+ <style type="text/css">
+ div.rule {padding-top: 1em;}
+ div.ldp-issue-open {
+ border-color: #E05252;
+ background: #FBE9E9;
+ padding: 0.5em;
+ margin: 1em 0;
+ position: relative;
+ clear: both;
+ border-left-width: .5em;
+ border-left-style: solid;
+ }
+ div.ldp-issue-pending {
+ border-color: #FAF602;
+ background: #F7F6BC;
+ padding: 0.5em;
+ margin: 1em 0;
+ position: relative;
+ clear: both;
+ border-left-width: .5em;
+ border-left-style: solid;
+ }
+ div.ldp-issue-closed {
+ border-color: #009900;
+ background: #BCF7CF;
+ padding: 0.5em;
+ margin: 1em 0;
+ position: relative;
+ clear: both;
+ border-left-width: .5em;
+ border-left-style: solid;
+ }
+ div.ldp-issue-title {
+ color: #E05252;
+ padding-right: 1em;
+ min-width: 7.5em;
+ }
+ </style>
+ <style type="text/css" media="all">
+ code {
+ font-weight:bold;
+ font-size:larger;
+ }
+ /* ReSpec uses color ff4500 for code elements, which does not print well on some black & white printers
+ and is a little hard to read for some folks even on-line.
+ The default code font size was also somewhat too small/hard to read.
+ */
+ </style>
+ </head>
+<body>
+<section id='abstract'>
+A set of best practices and simple approach for a read-write Linked Data architecture, based on
+HTTP access to web resources that describe their state using the <abbr title="Resource Description Framework">RDF</abbr>
+data model.
+</section>
+
+
+
+<section>
+<h1 id="ldpr">Linked Data Platform Resources</h1>
+
+<p>Some of the rules defined in this document provide
+ clarification and refinement of the base Linked Data rules [[2dcontext]]
+ others address additional needs.</p>
+
+
+
+
+</section> <!-- h1 -->
+
+
+<section class='appendix informative'>
+<h2>Acknowledgements</h2>
+
+ <p>The y</p>
+
+</section>
+
+<section class='appendix informative' id="history">
+<h1>Change History</h1>
+<p>The change history is up to the editors to insert a brief summary of
+changes, ordered by most recent changes first and with heading from which
+public draft it has been changed from.
+</p>
+</section>
+
+<section class='appendix informative' id="todos">
+<h1>Editor Todos and Notes</h1>
+<p>Other than LDP </p>
+</section>
+
+ </body>
+</html>