Re: terminology/necessity of hydra:required

> OK, now I think I got what you mean. The thing is that the range of
> "required" is xsd:boolean.

Ah yes, I meant "domain".

>> Another way round would be:
>> is there any meaningful superclass shared by SupportedProperty and
>> IriTemplateMapping?

(So for "domain" this makes more sense.)

> I don't think we need to introduce one just for the sake of it.

Probably not, no.
We end up with a really generic property without domain, but maybe that's not a problem.

Humanity probably needs a generic vocabulary for RFC2119 :-)

>> Yes and no. in the first you have the confusion that a
>> SupportedProperty is not a Property;
>> the hydra:SupportedProperty is the blank node; the hydra:property is
>> foaf:name.
> 
> There have been discussions (mainly with Sam) to relax this restriction so
> that you can also directly point to a property instead of going through the
> indirection of SupportedProperty. 

Mmm, the "also" bothers me there.
Because then, the range of hydra:supportedProperty
would be the union of rdf:Property and hydra:SupportedProperty…
and hydra:SupportedProperty would still not be property nor rdf:Property.

Either have the indirection or don't… but not both.

> … and at the same time you would introduce hydra:optionalParameter?

or not. Just hydra:parameter and hydra:required true/false.

> I'm still not convinced of this terminology. "Class" and "parameter" do not
> really match IMO.

Fair enough. But a SupportedProperty that's not a property doesn't seem optimal either.
Alternatives needed?

Ruben

Received on Thursday, 6 February 2014 18:53:35 UTC