- From: Tomasz Pluskiewicz via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2019 09:17:28 +0000
- To: public-hydra-logs@w3.org
> I think the approach taken in #186 is less revolutionary Indeed, but I think we need revolutionary > but I can see both approaches has some similarities Definitely inspired by the former proposals, but I intend a flexible solutions > server may provide multiple expected classes would the min/max cardinalities cover that? Having multiple 0-1 parts, each for a different class... > it is both possible and doable to provide all resources in RDF Short answer: 🤮 Long answer: you'd need to invent/resuse even more terms to describe objects of those properties. With multipart/form-data we're using same approach everyone else on the web uses. And cannot agree with the **serious processing**. > cardinality should be provided in some more unified way We could use those terms for property cardinalities. On the other hand the multipart support could be its own auxiliary spec, with its own specific terms. Much like SHACL will definitely be an independent extension and shapes have their own cardinality lingo. -- GitHub Notification of comment by tpluscode Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/HydraCG/Specifications/issues/199#issuecomment-512173656 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 17 July 2019 09:17:29 UTC