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

Re: remove hydra:Resource and hydra:Class (ISSUE-90)

From: Dietrich Schulten <ds@escalon.de>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2015 09:02:18 +0100
Message-ID: <54B6228A.1010907@escalon.de>
To: public-hydra@w3.org
May I propose that we conclude that there is no consensus to remove 
hydra:Class and hydra:Resource at this time and turn our focus to the 
other issues in the issue tracker? My feeling is, with all respect, some 
of them have higher practical relevance.

Speaking from my POV, #37 and #26 cause a lot of pain to me.

Best regards,

Am 13.01.2015 um 23:21 schrieb Markus Lanthaler:
> On 13 Jan 2015 at 22:38, Gregg Kellogg wrote:
>> On Jan 13, 2015, at 1:26 PM, Markus Lanthaler wrote:
>>> On 13 Jan 2015 at 09:51, Ruben Verborgh wrote:
>>>> In order to find out whether the other 5 resources are dereferenceable,
>>>> the crawler has to perform 5 GET requests.
>>>> 3 of them dereference, 2 do not.
>>> Right, but the goal is not to find out whether they are dereferenceable or
>>> not but whether it is worth (from the publishers POV) to follow them.
>> Yes, but isn't this the purpose of marking a predicate a hydra:Link.
>> That seems to tell me what I need to know, indeed, to know a resource
>> is a hydra:Resource, I need a partial representation of the resource
>> to know its type, which I don't for a link. I think hydra:Link
>> provides everything we need.
> The range of a hydra:Link is hydra:Resource. So yes, they are basically doing the same. It gets a bit tricky if you have a property which is only in specific cases a link or whose definition you don't want to change.
> --
> Markus Lanthaler
> @markuslanthaler
Received on Wednesday, 14 January 2015 08:03:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 14 January 2015 08:03:04 UTC