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

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

From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2014 22:53:53 +0200
To: <public-hydra@w3.org>
Message-ID: <009d01cf9700$e7e76710$b7b63530$@gmx.net>
On 3 Jul 2014 at 21:25, Gregg Kellogg wrote:
> While it would be good to define the range of hydra:manages, and
> make sure subject/property/object have that thing in their domain,
> in practice, I don't expect serializations to include it, and
> clients shouldn't depend on that type being asserted.

Good point but I think Ruben is more concerned about the name we use to
describe the "manages block" in the specification. Having a good name for
that purpose would be very valuable, minting an IRI for that concept is less
important, I agree.

> Regarding giving it an IRI, vs using a BNode, I think this comes
> down to publisher preference. I don't have any problems using a
> BNode for such a block. If a publisher wants to give it an IRI, I
> have no problem with that. However, a best practice should be that a
> Collection serialization include the hydra:manages block inline,
> rather than requiring an additional GET.

+1 that clearly affects performance and should be properly documented in the

Markus Lanthaler
Received on Thursday, 3 July 2014 20:54:23 UTC

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