- From: Thomas Hoppe <thomas.hoppe@n-fuse.de>
- Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2014 20:17:42 +0100
- To: public-hydra@w3.org
On 02/14/2014 11:17 AM, Ruben Verborgh wrote: >> 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. Sorry that was lousily described but I meant what you said. >> 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; So this point is valid I think. If we make it "mandatory" then we force API providers to re-enumerate properties -- I don't like this. >> 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. Ok, you mean it's rather a proxy than the property itself? > > Ruben > >
Received on Saturday, 15 February 2014 19:18:10 UTC