W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-hydra@w3.org > January 2015

RE: Allowing variableRepresentation also on IriTemplateMapping (was: variable representations edited for spec)

From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2015 21:58:54 +0100
To: "'Hydra'" <public-hydra@w3.org>
Message-ID: <024901d02861$40f52210$c2df6630$@gmx.net>
On 31 Dez 2014 at 17:44, Ruben Verborgh wrote:
>> I completely agree that it would be nice to do
>> so in some cases but does it change anything apart from making the
>> URLs longer/shorter?
>> Absolutely. I just don't see how mixing representation formats helps
>> or servers or enables new functionality that can't be realized otherwise.
> The use case I mentioned earlier would not be supported:
> Extending the triple pattern fragments interface with a structured
free-text object search:
>    ?subject / ?predicate / ?object / ?freeText
> where the ?freeText field allows control characters (*, ?, .).
> Then the first 3 are IRIs/literals, the fourth is free-text.

I still think a datatype would be more appropriate for this use case than a
separate variable representation format.

> We cannot simply split this in two forms,
> because then we cannot combine a subject filter and a free-text filter.


> The datatype-based solution might work (even though I dislike that
> but then again we'd have to specify this is allowed for that field.
> This is probably best discussed in the freetext thread.

Yeah, that's probably better. Are there any other use cases you can think of
that would require different variable representations?

Markus Lanthaler
Received on Sunday, 4 January 2015 20:59:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:29:44 UTC