Should hydra:contains actually be a nested node in Fedora 4? about hydra-works HOT 8 CLOSED

I'm ambivalent. It seems like it fits the data model, so I'd be okay with it assuming we still have the relationships set up appropriately and don't just assume a relationship based on path. Does it help things somehow, or just easier for a human to recognize how it's related?

from hydra-works.

If we nest the files, Fedora-4 would automatically give us an "ldp:contains" assertion on the Work and "fedora:hasParent" assertion on the File

from hydra-works.

/cc @azaroth42

from hydra-works.

It seems like there isn't any harm in doing this and there's some added benefits, such as what @jcoyne mentions, so I'm 👍 on this. However, should it be extended to Collection, which also utilizes hasFile, and is there any impact if a file can be a part of more than one work or collection? Would we want to, or are we able to, do this to hasMember as well?

from hydra-works.

I need to work through it before commenting in any meaningful way. There's some snarly bits with the relationships between LDP and ORE that might make things trickier than they appear, especially when proxy nodes are part of the mix. I'll try to grab @cbeer this afternoon...

from hydra-works.

Clearly I did not manage to do that. We should discuss in detail at the post-code4lib hydra meeting IMO.

from hydra-works.

Proposal to discuss:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RI8aX8XQEk-30-Ht-DaPF5nz_VtI1-eqxUuDvF3nhv0/edit

from hydra-works.

Is this resolved?

from hydra-works.