- From: Ruben Verborgh <ruben.verborgh@ugent.be>
- Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 10:17:45 +0000
- To: Thomas Hoppe <thomas.hoppe@n-fuse.de>
- Cc: public-hydra@w3.org
> Just to prevent misunderstandings: you propose to make supportedProperties mandatory for classes? I'm not sure if I understand correctly what you mean by "classes", but I do want to make the use of the current SupportedProperty mandatory; that is, not allow both rdf:Property and hydra:SupportedProperty instances as values of supportedProperty. > I don't like that because I think we need to allow for other strategies than the explicit enumeration > of supported properties on classes. I do agree with this statement; I probably did misunderstand "classes" then above; > Even if it would be mandatory, why do you want to get rid of the term 'property'? Because a SupportedProperty is not a Property. That's confusing. Ruben
Received on Friday, 14 February 2014 10:18:18 UTC