- From: Asbjørn Ulsberg via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 25 May 2020 16:20:28 +0000
- To: public-hydra-logs@w3.org
> Right... It hardly makes sense to maintain a built-in model (`hydra:Class` et.al.) if we know that it is a wasted effort on a sub-par solution which is likely not enough for any serious application. Exactly. What do you say, @serialseb? Is the value provided by `hydra:Class` enough to warrant its existence in the Core vocabulary, or should it be removed altogether, delegating schema and validation to external tooling and standards? > The vocabulary is already open enough to allow anything to be used with `hydra:expects`. Might continue the discussion of template mappings (which I consider forms-lite) to also be not limited to `hydra` terms and we'd be almost at the finish line. It would be great to see an attempt at specifying the bridge between Hydra and at least two different schema languages, just so we can get a clear picture of how that interaction is going to look like. If there are any wrinkles, we should iron those out before Hydra Core reaches v1.0. -- GitHub Notification of comment by asbjornu Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/HydraCG/Specifications/issues/214#issuecomment-633641079 using your GitHub account
Received on Monday, 25 May 2020 16:20:30 UTC