Re: terminology/necessity of hydra:required

Hi Markus,

>> 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?

Required properties and required mappings are different things;
even though they both happen to start with "required".
Basically, the same reason that all properties are not called "hydra:has"
(even though this example is more detailed).

Having a property that doesn't have a strict range
makes me always wonder how well-defined it is.

Another way round would be:
is there any meaningful superclass shared by SupportedProperty and IriTemplateMapping?

> 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.

Yes and no… in the first you have the confusion that a SupportedProperty is not a Property;
the hydra:SupportedProperty is the blank node; the hydra:property is foaf:name.

hydra:Parameter and hydra:controls might not be the right names though.

> foaf:Person hydra:requiredParameter [
>    hydra:property foaf:name .
>    hydra:required true .
>  ] .

So a parameter would be a property that receives a value.
That seems clearer than a SupportedProperty which is not a property.

Best,

Ruben

Received on Wednesday, 5 February 2014 18:12:23 UTC