W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-hydra@w3.org > July 2014

RE: Call for consensus on collection design (ISSUE-41)

From: McBennett, Pat <McBennettP@DNB.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2014 13:57:26 -0500
To: Ruben Verborgh <ruben.verborgh@ugent.be>
CC: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>, "public-hydra@w3.org" <public-hydra@w3.org>
Message-ID: <52EE3F4A5E7F194A963FE14B2DDBDBFE2CC257C7DF@DNBEXCH01.dnbint.net>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ruben Verborgh [mailto:ruben.verborgh@ugent.be]
> Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2014 6:50 PM
> To: McBennett, Pat
> Cc: Markus Lanthaler; public-hydra@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Call for consensus on collection design (ISSUE-41)
> >   </alice> hydra:collection </alice/friends> .
> >   </alice/friends> a hydra:Collection ;
> >       hydra:manages </alice/friends/meta> .
> >
> >   </alice/friends/meta> hydra:property schema:knows ;
> >       hydra:subject </alice>
> Note that this is related to the TODO that I propose, i.e., to define what the
> object of manages is, sticking a name to it.

Yep, it sure is - in fact I'd say it's exactly the same concern, i.e. the 'blank node-ness' of 'hydra:manages'. I want to avoid blank nodes (where possible), and you want to know its domain and future evolution.

But my suggestion was more than a TODO, i.e. I propose stating explicitly in the spec the (potential) problems with blank nodes, *and* a suggested convention for those who want to avoid them (i.e. explicitly name the node with a '/meta' suffix (or '/reify' even!)).

I think that would be sufficient, and then we could close the issue without niggly TODOs :) !

> Ruben
Received on Thursday, 3 July 2014 18:57:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:29:42 UTC