- From: Ruben Verborgh <ruben.verborgh@ugent.be>
- Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 16:19:53 +0000
- To: Thomas Hoppe <thomas.hoppe@n-fuse.de>
- Cc: public-hydra@w3.org
>> You seem to silently assume that people will either give >> a URI that is an rdf:Property or a blank node that is a SupportedProperty. >> That assumption is incorrect and leads to unclear modeling. > > Why not resolve the information what it is from the foaf vocab [1]. Exactly my point; there's no other option except doing that. That's possible, I know. That's not too hard, I know—at at least in most cases. But this assumes that: a) the client can dereference the thing (is URL, server up, reachable, still exists, etc.) b) it can parse the representation (HTML? RDF/XML? Turtle? Or JSON-LD?) c) it will say rdf:Property or a derived class (such as owl:DataProperty) d) if it is "derived class", that I can dereference it until I find it is or isn't an rdf:Property (restart from a) Much easier to model it correctly from the start. > and_ that it is a http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#DatatypeProperty > which clearly indicates that I can't dereference the value? That doesn't really matter here, right? Only thing that matters is whether it is an rdf:Property or a hydra:SupportedProperty (and hopefully, both classes are distinct). > Otherwise I would expect clients to understand whether a property must be > be further dereferenced or not from the bare semantics of it. What are "bare semantics of it"? Best, Ruben
Received on Monday, 10 February 2014 16:20:28 UTC