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 22:58:47 +0200
To: <public-hydra@w3.org>
Message-ID: <009e01cf9701$95eb48e0$c1c1daa0$@gmx.net>
On 3 Jul 2014 at 20:57, McBennett, Pat wrote:
> Ruben Verborgh wrote on July 03, 2014 6:50 PM:
>>>   </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.

Are you sure you are talking about the same thing? As far as I understood
it, Ruben wants to have
  - a name for the "manages block", i.e., the range of hydra:manage
  - the domain of hydra:manage (not 100% if that was a typo or not)

You said you wanted to identify "manages blocks" with an IRI and
establishing a best practice of how those IRIs should look like (collection
IRI + /meta)

Markus Lanthaler
Received on Thursday, 3 July 2014 20:59:15 UTC

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