- From: Karol Szczepański via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 18:16:14 +0000
- To: public-hydra-logs@w3.org
Review status: all files reviewed at latest revision, 1 unresolved discussion. --- *[drafts/use-cases/5.creating-new-event.md, line 29 at r1](https://reviewable.io:443/reviews/hydracg/specifications/132#-KrT4ZeUK43qWAnpOI76:-Ks4yEH8dvXZCcUP-BW0:b-6klco5) ([raw file](https://github.com/hydracg/specifications/blob/7a85c04e5cbfa0958d3ffd64bb3fafbb423a1361/drafts/use-cases/5.creating-new-event.md#L29)):* <details><summary><i>Previously, lanthaler (Markus Lanthaler) wrote…</i></summary><blockquote> Yeah, I share that concerns as we "leak" quite a lot of RDF concepts here. Perhaps renaming `manages` to `constraints` or something similar and trying to come up with something replacing `subject` and `object` would solve that (we could eventually look at [SHACL](https://www.w3.org/TR/shacl/) which recently became a W3C recommendation). In the spirit of moving fast(er) I'd, howerver, like to propose to go ahead and merge this PR. If someone has a concrete proposal to improve this, it can be discussed in a separate PR. If no one objects, I'll merge this tomorrow. </blockquote></details> Tha major issue I've got with `getCollection` is that the client need's to know ad-hoc that the result is a collection. As for the JSON-LD filtering - I agree that we shouldn't be JSON-LD bound. And yes - it seems like `filtering`. Do we have an agreement here? --- *Comments from [Reviewable](https://reviewable.io:443/reviews/hydracg/specifications/132)* <!-- Sent from Reviewable.io --> -- GitHub Notification of comment by alien-mcl Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/HydraCG/Specifications/pull/132#issuecomment-323815173 using your GitHub account
Received on Monday, 21 August 2017 18:16:13 UTC