- From: Tomasz Pluskiewicz via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 10 May 2019 06:56:41 +0000
- To: public-hydra-logs@w3.org
> Generally, I don't expect an API to provide me exact description of a property from these vocabularies: schema.org, RDF, RDFS, OWL, FoaF (maybe I could find few other) Sounds like a fair compromise. But I would explicitly recommend built-in support and warn against the pitfalls of handling this at runtime as the default strategy. Unfortunately there are still some problems. First, some vocals like schema may not provide any ranges other than in textual descriptions. Who would maintain this information for the clients? Would we have to handcraft it and include as part of the Hydra recommendation? Having read your comments, I think I would propose something similar yet reversed. 1. For shared vocabularies the server SHOULD provide explicit property ranges. 1. For local vocabularies, the server MAY omit property ranges but the vocabulary MUST accurately describe them. In such case, the client MUST dereference the terms which are not explicitly annotated with `rdfs:range` 1. It is NOT RECOMMENDED to skip ranges for external vocabularies unless the client is explicitly implemented to handle (local caches, etc) them without incurring performance penalty and/or issues with dereferencing in the first place. This way we explicitly recommend against relying on dereferencing third party vocabs, which will be an instant problem for any unsuspecting "client" application. -- GitHub Notification of comment by tpluscode Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/HydraCG/Specifications/issues/192#issuecomment-491178770 using your GitHub account
Received on Friday, 10 May 2019 06:56:43 UTC