- From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
- Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 14:20:55 +0200
- To: <public-hydra@w3.org>
On Monday, October 13, 2014 9:08 PM, John Walker wrote: >> On October 13, 2014 at 7:57 PM Markus Lanthaler wrote: >> On 13 Okt 2014 at 19:44, John Walker wrote: >> > Hi Markus >> > >> > [snip] >> >> >> >> This pattern works with all vocabularies, even the ones that use >> >> rdfs:range. Strictly speaking, with schema.org you wouldn't need >> >> that indirection but you end up with a "strange" triple if you >> >> don't >> >> >> >> /product review /product/reviews <-- this is the "strange" triple >> >> /product review /product/reviews/1 >> >> /product review /product/reviews/2 >> >> /product review /product/reviews/3 >> >> ... >> > >> > >> > I'm not a fan of 'strictly speaking' approach. Just because it's not >> > explicitly ruled out doesn't make it 'right' to do. Way I see it is >> > it's so obvious it points to an event of some kind that you don't >> > need to state it. >> >> Well.. if you look at the recent addition of Roles in Schema.org you'll see >> that this pattern is being promoted (to some degree). Schema.org's >> rangeIncludes was specifically designed to allow this flexibility. The >> mantra is to make it as simple as possible for publishers at the expense of >> making the consumption of data more complex... but generally you can't trust >> data on the Web anyway without some additional measures. > > That's no problem with Schema.org properties as no formal domain/range > is defined, but is Hydra intended only for use with Schema.org? We > can't rewrite the semantics of properties that do already have a > domain/range defined. I think we are going circles now. You have read http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-hydra/2014Oct/0072.html Right? -- Markus Lanthaler @markuslanthaler
Received on Tuesday, 14 October 2014 12:21:28 UTC