- From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
- Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 19:51:36 +0100
- To: <public-hydra@w3.org>
On Friday, February 14, 2014 8:02 AM, Thomas Hoppe wrote:
> On 02/11/2014 11:48 PM, Ruben Verborgh wrote:
> >> So, according to you, lies the crux of the problem in the used
> terminology
> >> or in the structure of the graph? I definitely agree that the
> terminology is
> >> confusing if you look at it from this perspective.
> > Both really, they are connected to each other.
> > SupportedProperty is now a proxy around property
> > to allow us to attach extra metadata like hydra:required.
> >
> > I'd suggest to make that proxy mandatory (= stricter modeling)
> > and give it a name that doesn't involve "Property".
>
> Just to prevent misunderstandings: you propose to make
> supportedProperties mandatory for classes?
No, Ruben was objecting to change the range of "supportedProperties" to also
allow properties directly instead of going through a SupportedProperty
"proxy". Sam proposed to also allow that. So basically that both
... hydra:supportedProperty foaf:name .
and
... hydra:supportedProperty [
rdf:type hydra:SupportedProperty ;
hydra:property foaf:name .
].
would be allowed as it would make the enumeration much simpler in a lot of
cases as illustrated above.
This doesn't mean, however, that you *have* to describe the supported
properties for each class. It would just add another way to do so (if you
choose to do so).
--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler
Received on Monday, 17 February 2014 18:52:09 UTC