Re: [oslc-core] Draft query spec

["Jim Amsden" <jamsden@us.ibm.com>]

I see the need to address the impact of
introducing LDP regarding rdfs:member vs: ldp:member (which is a subproperty
of rdfs:member) vs. ldp:contains. But for OSLC Query and TRS, wouldn't
it be enough to simply say members can be designated with any of these
properties and be done? Is there a need to support LDP's more general membership
predicates supported by ldp:DirectContainer for these applications?

I think the intended purpose was to
essentially be able to treat any OSLC resource URL as a queryBase, and
use membership predicates to be able to use OSLC query on aggregate properties
of that resource. 

If that was the intent, and if OSLC
Query or TRS 2.0 supported these, or similar scenarios, then we have to
maintain them (e.g., QM uses a type-specific membership property such as
oslc_qm:testcase). But I think it would be helpful to at least deprecate
this practice to discourage its use.



Jim Amsden, Senior Technical Staff Member
OSLC and Linked Lifecycle Data
919-525-6575




From:      
 "Nicholas Crossley"
<nick_crossley@us.ibm.com>
To:      
 "OSLC Core TC
(oslc-core@lists.oasis-open.org)" <oslc-core@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date:      
 05/30/2018 10:31 AM
Subject:    
   Re: [oslc-core]
Draft query spec
Sent by:    
   <oslc-core@lists.oasis-open.org>

---

Jim asked "- Regarding the oslc:resourceShape
(similar comments apply to TRS membership), why is it necessary or even
useful to have different ways of packaging the results of a query into
a container? Why not simply state that the query results are in an ldp:Container,
and members are declared using the ldp:contains property? Why introduce
additional variability? This would seem to add client and server complexity
with limited value. If we need to do this, then it should be motivated
here." Several other comments address membership issues.

OSLC query was originally developed before LDP, and so had some concepts
such as membership properties that it defined for itself. Several existing
applications use this - in fact, I do not know of any IBM CLM application
that uses ldp:contains for query results. Most seem to use rdfs:member,
though RQM uses a type-specific membership property such as oslc_qm:testcase.

For compatibility, the OSLC query specification must allow this kind of
membership definition - though it need not encourage it for future implementations.

Nick.