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

Re: remove hydra:Resource and hydra:Class

From: Thomas Hoppe <thomas.hoppe@n-fuse.de>
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2015 23:29:09 +0100
Message-ID: <54ADB335.1080203@n-fuse.de>
To: Ruben Verborgh <ruben.verborgh@ugent.be>
CC: public-hydra@w3.org
Ok, so I'm +1

On 01/05/2015 04:30 PM, Ruben Verborgh wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
>
>> I thought about this in the past but settled with the simple fact that
>> the difference is the fact that hydra:Resource hints for the ability to dereference.
> But that's not an ontological concern.
> An ontology relates concepts;
> whether or not those concepts dereference
> depends on the addressing scheme you use to identify them.
>
>> But aren't statements like this the actual problem?:
>>
>>     {
>>       "@id": "hydra:entrypoint",
>>       "@type": "hydra:Link",
>>       "domain": "hydra:ApiDocumentation",
>>       "label": "entrypoint",
>>       "range": "hydra:Resource"
>>     }
>>
>> If we change to this:
>>
>>     {
>>       "@id": "hydra:entrypoint",
>>       "@type": "hydra:Link",
>>       "domain": "hydra:ApiDocumentation",
>>       "label": "entrypoint",
>>       "range": "rdfs:Resource"
>>     }
>>
>> Isn't this saying that if we have a rdfs:Resource which
>> has an hydra:entrypoint, the resource is also a hydra:ApiDocumentation.
> Yes it does, and it already does currently.
> At the moment, anything that has a hyra:endtrypoint property is,
> by definition, a hydra:ApiDocumentation, hydra:Resource, and rdfs:Resource.
> But that is said by the "domain" line, not the "range" line.
>
> Best,
>
> Ruben
Received on Wednesday, 7 January 2015 22:29:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 22:29:38 UTC