search

duraspace / pcdm

Portland Common Data Model
http://pcdm.org/models
Apache License 2.0
90 stars 11 forks source link

Clarify non-requirement of LDP in PCDM 2.0 #56

Closed awead closed 7 years ago

awead commented 7 years ago

If I understand correctly, PCDM does not require LDP containment. Could this be clarified in 2.0? Under Files, I'm seeing

Files MUST be contained by exactly one FileSet.

I think we mean here that a File object can be the member of only one FileSet.

awead commented 7 years ago

Direct containment makes sense in this case, so maybe we need to clarify which classes use LDP and which don't, but it's basically just all predicates, right? So it's up to the implementor to choose how they want to manage them.

escowles commented 7 years ago

@awead I agree, it would be better to change that language to avoid "contained" which implied LDP concepts that are not required. Though I'm also hesitant to use "member" either, since that's a different concept too.

How about "The cardinality of pcdm:hasFile is 1-to-many: an Object can have many Files, and a File can be a fileOf a single Object." ?

awead commented 7 years ago

@escowles works for me! How about another statement about LDP specifically? Ex, "While LDP can be used in an implementation of PCDM, it is not required. It can be used to manage the predicates that are required for PCDM."

escowles commented 7 years ago

OK, I've update the PCDM 2.0 wiki page.