- From: Jindřich Mynarz <mynarzjindrich@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 10:57:58 +0200
- To: public-hydra@w3.org
Hi Markus, On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 1:09 AM, Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net> wrote: >> and therefore more meaningful to use in rdfs:domain >> assertions. However, if its rdfs:domain is meant to be rdfs:Resource, >> then you're right to say that it's unnecessary to state it in the RDF >> description of the vocabulary, but it still might be helpful to >> document the absence of rdfs:domain isn't an omission. > > I thought that's such a common pattern that it's not necessary to document!? I don't feel strongly about this, we can also just assert that the domain is rdfs:Resource... but it blows up the vocabulary unnecessarily I believe we're discussing the documentation and rdfs:domain of hydra:search. It's currently defined as "A IRI template that can be used to query a collection" (note a typo: "A*n* IRI"), which hints that it's rdfs:domain is hydra:Collection. This is not captured explicitly in the RDF description of Hydra. If we're speaking about completing rdfs:domain of rdfs:Resource for properties with undefined rdfs:domain, then I think it suffices to state this in the specification, similarly to the ISSUE 6: "Mention that Hydra classes are dereferenceable resources." - Jindřich -- Jindřich Mynarz http://mynarz.net/#jindrich
Received on Wednesday, 18 June 2014 08:58:45 UTC