- From: Karol Szczepański via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2020 21:17:09 +0000
- To: public-hydra-logs@w3.org
>I do find the notion of graph subject/object relation a close enough approximation. Especially easy to >accept when you look at the graph as a JSON-LD tree I disagree. It's like treating nested HTML tags as separate documents. Spec is clear and says about documents. While you could imagine a situation when another document is embedded within RDF (i.e. as a raw base64 string inside of some value), but part of the document's graph should not be treated as separate documents. >Chicken and egg? How can you standardise anything without implementing first but at the same >time hold off any implementation before you standardise? Don't get me wrong - I have no issues with prototyping. It just looks like the commit is on a release candidate branch and I just don't want us to take any design decisions under pressure. Whole process should be clean and transparent from W3C point of view. >And granted, this is not the first and not the last code in Alcaeus which fills in gaps in the >specification to get a useful result of Hydra I bet! I hope to lower number of those gaps. Back to the topic - is there any agreement to adding new predicates for IriTemplate that would mark it for separate template expansion algorithm, i.e. `hydra:expansionAlgorithm` accepting values from which the default would point to the RFC mentioned? -- GitHub Notification of comment by alien-mcl Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/HydraCG/Specifications/issues/208#issuecomment-618676606 using your GitHub account
Received on Thursday, 23 April 2020 21:17:11 UTC