RE: terminology/necessity of hydra:required

On Thursday, February 06, 2014 7:53 PM, Ruben Verborgh wrote:
> >> 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.

Initially, I wasn't a big fan of that either but Sam convinced me that in a
lot of cases it helps to drastically simplify the required markup. If you
don't need to make any further statements about your supportedProperties,
you just enumerate them directly:

   foaf:Person hydra:supportedProperty
       foaf:givenName ,
       foaf:familyName .

If you need to describe them, you add a SupportedProperty construct in
between

   foaf:Person hydra:supportedProperty
       foaf:givenName,
       [ hydra:property foaf:familyName ;
         hydra:required true ] .


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

It makes processing of the data slightly more difficult but has the
advantage that you can avoid SupportedProperty in a lot of case. Do you see
other disadvantages of allowing both?


> > . and at the same time you would introduce hydra:optionalParameter?
> 
> or not. Just hydra:parameter and hydra:required true/false.

So effectively you would just propose to rename supportedProperty to
parameter?


> > 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.

Hm... would PropertyDescription or something similar be better in your
opinion?


> Alternatives needed?

That would certainly help


--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler

Received on Sunday, 9 February 2014 14:22:41 UTC