- From: Karol Szczepański via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2020 20:09:11 +0000
- To: public-hydra-logs@w3.org
The more I look at it, the less I like the idea of leaving this topic with a mere paragraph in the spec. From the raw RDF of the vocabulary it is clear thath `hydra:supportedOperation` shouldn't be applied to neither resources of type `hydra:SupportedProperty` nor `rdf:Property`. I'd love to make to formal and either extend current definition of the `hydra:supportedOperation`'s `schema:domainIncludes` list with either the `rdf:Property` or `hydra:SupportedProperty`. The former will make existing examples somehow legal, but leaving the issue of attaching features to predicates taken from external vocabularies. The latter feels to me a bit cleaner. It makes those examples broken (well, they are broken now), but there will be no semantic issues with hydra predicates attached to external terms. Both will enable hydra to be more CQRS ready - I saw the discussion on one of the slack channels that touched it (API with patching and CQRS-like approach). I'll prepare a PR for this - we'll see how it will end up -- GitHub Notification of comment by alien-mcl Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/HydraCG/Specifications/issues/196#issuecomment-587765660 using your GitHub account
Received on Tuesday, 18 February 2020 20:09:13 UTC