- From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
- Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 12:25:53 +0200
- To: <public-hydra@w3.org>
On 10 Okt 2014 at 21:40, Olaf Hartig wrote:
> Sounds like a very reasonable proposal to me. So, +1
+1, totalItems was always intended to be exact...
> The question is whether this requirement (i.e., hydra:totalItems should be
> exact) is too strict for other use cases.
... whatever that means in practice. The thing is that as soon as you
receive that triple, the server's state may have already changed. I would
thus prefer to avoid to define it too precisely/strictly. Maybe slightly
tweaking the TPF spec [1] is enough. Something like
The metadata set MAY additionally contain variations of the above
Triple [void:triples]. For instance, if the exact number of matching
triples is known, it is RECOMMENDED to add a triple with the
same subject and object and the hydra:totalItems predicate.
perhaps.
[1] http://www.hydra-cg.com/spec/latest/triple-pattern-fragments/
Cheers,
Markus
> On Friday 10 October 2014 16:29:22 Kjetil Kjernsmo wrote:
>> Hi all!
>>
>> Just returning to implementing triple pattern fragments, I find myself
>> wondering if it makes sense to have two predicates hydro:totalItems and
>> void:triple with almost the same semantics. Well, the latter has been
>> defined as an estimate for ages, the former isn't all that clearly
defined,
>> but since the TPF spec says they should have exactly the same subject and
>> object, it practically means that... It sounds like a case of URI
aliasing
>> to me.
>>
>> So, I propose that one should be exact, the other may be an estimate.
That
>> could prove useful. And since void:triples has been non-exact for a long
>> time, I think hydro:totalItems should be exact.
>>
>> IMHO, of course :-)
>>
>> Kjetil
Received on Monday, 13 October 2014 10:26:23 UTC