- From: Dietrich Schulten <ds@escalon.de>
- Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 11:37:43 +0100
- To: public-hydra@w3.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Am 16.12.2014 um 23:08 schrieb Markus Lanthaler: > On 15 Dez 2014 at 10:31, Dietrich Schulten wrote: >> Make ex:AcmeEvent a subClassOf schema:Event, then ex:acmeEventId >> rdfs:domain ex:AcmeEvent ex:acmeEventId rdfs:range xsd:Integer >> ex:acmeEventId a owl:FunctionalProperty ex:acmeEventId a >> owl:InverseFunctionalProperty > >> Why would I want to do that? I could tell a client "if you are >> asked for a both functional and inverseFunctional property of a >> subclass of schema:Event, then use 4711" - rather than having to >> tell it about a vendor-specific property acmeEventId. Bingo - no >> vendor-specific knowledge needed in advance. > > Hmm... not sure whether that's such a good idea. What if you have > multiple of those identifiers? Think of, e.g., SKU and EAN or ISBN > numbers. That is part of my motivation: for *those* there are properties in schema.org. If the API can use such an ID, that is of course preferable over custom ids. So I can at least answer this question :) > > >> Would that be correct? If so, then this probably could also be >> generated somehow, at least with Spring-Hateoas which has a way >> to mark attributes as Identifiable. > > I haven't thought too much about it but my gut feeling is that you > will run into all kinds of issues with such a heuristic. Why do you > try so hard to work around the fact that the number "4711" is a > vendor-specific, proprietary identifier? If it is, why can't it be > expressed using a vendor-specific, proprietary property? > > > Cheers, Markus Actually I am not trying to work around that fact but I try to find a way to document that fact in a machine-readable way. My proposal is in fact a propriety property, but I want to be able to describe it so that a machine could more easily recognize and handle it for what it is. I guess what I need is a compelling use case. My issue has to do with the way I think of the way we should program clients for linked data. Right now what we have is the Traverson approach: you tell the client to follow a rel path to achieve a goal. That is already a huge change, compared with the traditional way. But my mid-term goal is a client which I can tell to achieve a goal based on some predefined knowledge, and it finds its way through a hypermedia-enabled api. Part of that predefined knowledge would be "necessary identifiers". Lots of issues to solve there, I know :) Best regards, Dietrich - -- Dietrich Schulten Escalon System-Entwicklung Bubenhalde 10 74199 Untergruppenbach -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32) iEYEARECAAYFAlST//YACgkQuKLNitGfiZMOigCgmOxMOQ7g/sPoV3Uinw00Mz72 OogAoJRBiewMCRqJjOCKV+NTqTEcbgMj =k/40 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Friday, 19 December 2014 10:38:15 UTC