Re: relate a Collection and a PagedCollection

On Apr 27, 2014, at 6:25 AM, "Markus Lanthaler" <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net> wrote:
> 
>> On Friday, April 25, 2014 6:38 PM, Thomas Hoppe wrote:
>> Just my very compressed 50 Cent on this topic:
>> - I can follow Ruben's rationale to distinguish a Page and a Paged
>> Collection although I don't see how this would be relevant in
>> practice... I think about this from a perspective where you want a
>> collection be the Range of a property: We would not gain anything from
>> being able to specify a Page as range... this is an academic case I
>> think. Using a Paged Collection as range however, a consumer has a
>> useful concept at hand which, yes, is a hybrid.
> 
> I think you'd "never" set the range of a property such as "knows" to Page,
> but would always set it to Collection.

Really? I thought we had discussed this elsewhere, and wanted to be sure that the range of :knows, could remain :Person, and not :Collection; I don't know a collection.

I've been using :collectionProperty to relate a predicate to another predicate which is intended to be a collection which manifests these :knows properties, or :collectionFor to do the inverse.

But, the point is taken, that (collection)properties of things should refer to Collections, and not Pages. If we have Pages, then they are referred to from from a Collection.

>> - I don't like the enumeration of Members as Greg proposed it. This is
>> so LDP, rdf:List but not common in APIs.
> 
> I agree. That's my main concern. See the other thread.

Hmm, I didn't think I was breaking new ground on this. What I wrote just said that a collection has multiple members through the hydra:member property, not that they were in a list, although it could be argued that they should be.

Gregg

> --
> Markus Lanthaler
> @markuslanthaler
> 
>

Received on Sunday, 27 April 2014 14:48:38 UTC