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

Re: remove hydra:Resource and hydra:Class

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2015 10:23:50 -0500
Message-ID: <54AAAC86.4050106@openlinksw.com>
To: public-hydra@w3.org
On 1/5/15 6:58 AM, Ruben Verborgh wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> For reasons of simplicity and vocabulary reuse,
> could we remove hydra:Resource and hydra:Class?
>
> Right now, everything in the Hydra Core Vocabulary
> is a hydra:Resource, and all classes are hydra:Class.
>
> The only difference between hydra:Resource and rdfs:Resource
> is that hydra:Resource instances are dereferenceable;
> and rdfs:Resource itself adds no semantics whatsoever, since
> “all things described by RDF are instances of the class rdfs:Resource” [1].
>
> Dereferenceability is orthogonal to ontological relationships,
> and should IMHO be a recommended practice in the spec
> rather than an ontological relationship. It does not add anything at all:
> - If a client wants to dereference, the absence of hydra:Resource
>    does*not*  mean something is*not*  dereferenceable.
> - If a client wants to dereference a hydra:Resource,
>    it takes the exact same steps it would for something
>    that is not explicitly labeled a hydra:Resource.
> - The only difference is the “guarantee” offered by the ontology
>    that something is dereferenceable; but actually doing the dereferencing
>    and finding out whether something is dereferenceable
>    involves the exact same step, i.e., GETting the thing.
>    No gain there.
>
> In addition, hydra:Class is simply the disjunction
> of hydra:Resource and rdfs:Class,
> so by the above reasoning, we can simply make it rdfs:Class.
>
> It seems to me that hydra:Resource and hydra:Class
> are artifacts of something that no longer has importance.
> I therefore propose to simplify and clarify the ontology by:
> - removing hydra:Resource and mentions of it;
> - removing hydra:Class and replace mentions of it by rdfs:Class.
> If necessary, we can add something to the spec about dereferencing,
> but I don't think that this would add something.
>
> Any thoughts on this?
> If we all agree, I can make the necessary edits to the spec.
>
> Best,
>
> Ruben
>
> [1]http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_resource

+1

Happy New Year !

-- 
Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog 1: http://kidehen.blogspot.com
Personal Weblog 2: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter Profile: https://twitter.com/kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
Personal WebID: http://kingsley.idehen.net/dataspace/person/kidehen#this




Received on Monday, 5 January 2015 15:24:13 UTC

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