- From: Ruben Verborgh <ruben.verborgh@ugent.be>
- Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 18:53:19 +0000
- To: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
- Cc: public-hydra@w3.org
>> Basically, we have the choice between:
>> a) the subjects are the elements of the collection ("Actor")
>> b) the subjects are "related" to the elements of the collection ("Movie
>> starring actor")
>> Clearly, a) is most strictly defined;
>> and b) is so loosely defined that we basically cannot infer anything.
>
> Which doesn't mean that it's useless. In fact, most similar technologies I'm
> aware of (OpenSearch, Elasticsearch etc.) do use exactly that approach by
> default.
Yes, but they target human consumers.
Hydra targets machine consumers, and they need more explanation.
I think we need to place the bar higher than OpenSearch;
otherwise, we can just reuse that.
>> This is why I'm strongly in favor of a).
>
> How would you, e.g., realize a full-text query using a)?
hydra:freetextQuery.
or
[ a hydra:SupportedProperty; hydra:property foaf:name; hydra:valueType hydra:freetextQuery ].
> from a resource representation (aka document) POV it does
> make a lot of sense, IMO anyway. You query the representations based on
> property-value pairs and return the URLs that can be used to retrieve those
> representations. You look at it more from an RDF point of view in which you
> just look at the resources themselves in an (I would argue) abstract manner.
> Both have value depending on what you are trying to achieve and as you say
> it is possible to have both.
I'm not sure I fully see the two different viewpoints.
Could you perhaps elaborate on what they are (when you have time)?
Best,
Ruben
Received on Monday, 17 February 2014 18:53:53 UTC