Re: [Specifications] Adding already existing resources as collection members

> Yes, yes. But this is still valid, right?
>```json
>    {
>      "@type" : [ "hydra:Operation", "sor:LikeVideo" ]
>    }
>```

I don't think so, for values of `"@type"` one should use instances of `rdfs:Class` but we have `sor:likes a rdf:Property` so using it this way seems invalid.

As I mentioned before, I don't like idea of having to create and instance of `rdfs:Class` for all the existing instances of `rdf:Property` which someone would like to use with Hydra, just so that we can get by with `"@type"`. I'd like something more align with `manages` block, which in turn works very much like `rel` and `rev` in link relations and `ldp:hasMemberRelation` & `ldp:isMemberOfRelation` https://www.w3.org/ns/ldp

With a generic action `foo:Link` a resource could use multiple instances of it:
(assuming authenticated as *elfpavlik*)

```json
{
  "@context": { ... },
  "@id": "/videos/144522067",
  "operation": [
    {
      "@type": ["hydra:Operation", "foo:Link"],
      "method": "LINK",
      "links": {
        "subject": "/users/elfpavlik",
        "property": "sor:likes",
        "object": "/videos/144522067"
      }
    },
    {
      "@type": ["hydra:Operation", "foo:Link"],
      "method": "LINK",
      "links": {
        "subject": "/users/elfpavlik",
        "property": "cco:interest",
        "object": "/videos/144522067"
      }
    }
  ]
}
```

> I just explained that he doesn't necessarily have to. The representation can include the complete identifier where to PUT.

@tpluscode let's say server generates IRI clients should PUT to, how do you imagine including it in the representation of `/videos/144522067` (snippet please)

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by elf-pavlik
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/HydraCG/Specifications/issues/134#issuecomment-335047764 using your GitHub account

Received on Sunday, 8 October 2017 23:54:05 UTC