RE: terminology/necessity of hydra:required

Still catching up with all the mails... :-)


On Tuesday, January 28, 2014 7:32 PM, Ruben Verborgh wrote:
> Dear all,
> 
> hydra:required is used in two places:
> - with hydra:SupportedProperty
> - with hydra:IriTemplateMapping
> 
> What is the necessity to have this on hydra:IriTemplateMapping,
> given that URI templates already allow to specify required and optional
> properties?

Ryan already answered this. RFC6570 leaves this to the application, i.e., in
this case Hydra.

[...]

> If there is a necessity, shouldn't we split them into:
> - hydra:requiredProperty with domain hydra:SupportedProperty?
> - hydra:requiredMapping with domain hydra:IriTemplateMapping?

What would be the advantage of doing so? Instead of having a single
hydra:required you would now need four different properties (and use them
correctly):

  - hydra:requiredProperty
  - hydra:optionalProperty
  - hydra:requiredMapping
  - hydra:optionalMapping


> This splitting argument also holds for hydra:property,
> which is used with both hydra:SupportedProperty and
> hydra:IriTemplateMapping.
>
> I wonder if it is really a good idea to have
>     _:something hydra:SupportedProperties _:supportedProperty.
>     _: supportedProperty hydra:property _:property.
> since SupportedProperty is, confusingly, _not_ a property,
> but it does _have_ a property. How about something like:
>     _:something hydra:parameter_:parameter.
>     _: parameter hydra:controls _:property.

So, if I understand you correctly you are concerned about the naming and
would propose to rename

  supportedProperties -> parameter
  property -> controls

Hmm... I'm not sure I like this. It certainly looks weird when you look at
it from a class' perspective (using singulars to better illustrate the
difference):

  foaf:Person hydra:supportedProperty [
    hydra:property foaf:name .
    hydra:required true .
  ] .

vs.

  foaf:Person hydra:parameter [
    hydra:controls foaf:name .
    hydra:required true .
  ] .


Personally, I find the first much clearer.


--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler

Received on Monday, 3 February 2014 19:21:14 UTC