- From: Thomas Hoppe <thomas.hoppe@n-fuse.de>
- Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 18:56:32 +0100
- To: public-hydra@w3.org
Slightly offensive question: We are about to drop `hydra:CreateResourceOperation` and the like (I don't repeat the pros/ cons here). Isn't it inconsequent to keep hydra:search then?! For me the same arguments for removing the aovementioned operations apply equally to search or do I miss something? Greets On 02/12/2014 04:59 PM, Markus Lanthaler wrote: > On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 11:45 PM, Ruben Verborgh wrote: >>> I'm not sure whether there's a necessity to make this explicit >>> respectively how explicit we wanna make it. We can try to define >>> the hydra:search property in a fuzzy-enough way to not run into >>> the complexities of generic> query languages. I'm don't know how >>> feasible that's it, i.e., how much we can improve the current >>> description >>> >>> "A IRI template that can be used to query a collection" >>> >>> Do you have any ideas? >> Could the the following be added? >> "The items in the collection are filtered >> on whether they have the specified values for the specific >> properties." > Sounds like a good starting point. But as you say > >> That defines hydra:search really strictly, > The word that worries me a bit is the "they". Let's say we have a collection > of actors. Each actor appeared in a couple of movies of which each has a > "blockbuster: yes/no" property. A query template like > > /actors?blockbuster={blockbuster} > > to get the actors that appeared in a blockbuster wouldn't work in that case. > As there's "blockbuster" is on "Movie" and not on "Actor". Is that what we > want? Do we need to define a mechanism to describe such a use case? > > >> but makes it very useful. >> An alternative would be to keep hydra:search vague, >> but to define a subproperty such as hydra:propertySearch with that >> semantics. > ... or to relax the definition slightly. Something like > > The items in the collection are queried by the specified > property-value pairs. > > > Is that too fuzzy in your opinion? > > > -- > Markus Lanthaler > @markuslanthaler > >
Received on Wednesday, 12 February 2014 17:57:21 UTC