Re: concerns about hydra:mappings (ISSUE-30)

>> hydra:freetextQuery.
> 
> What does that mean? Map a IRI template variable to hydra:freetextQuery? No
> subject would have that property so a) wouldn't work, but probably you mean
> something else anyway.

It would mean that x matches the freetextQuery y.
Or if you wish, we could have:

<x> hydra:matchesQuery <y>.

>> [ a hydra:SupportedProperty; hydra:property foaf:name; hydra:valueType
>> hydra:freetextQuery ].
> 
> And if it were to look at all properties and not just foaf:name?

See the first solution :-)

>> I'm not sure I fully see the two different viewpoints.
>> Could you perhaps elaborate on what they are (when you have time)?
> 
> Maybe showing it based on the movie example suffices.

Thanks!

> The result of dereferencing /?blockbuster=true could now be defined to be
> (document POV)
> 
> </?blockbuster=true> hydra:member </hanks> .
> 
> Because if you'd go and dereference /hanks you would find a property-value
> pair ex:blockbuster true (even though it's subject isn't /hanks).

Okay, but this is very, very vague.
Hanks has played in non-blockbuster movies too.
Hilton might have dated an actor how played in blockbuster movies.

And I'm serious about that last example,
because nowhere we've said that the path length is bounded to one or two.
So why would a client expect
   Hanks ==starredIn==> Forrest Gump ==hasStatus==> blockbuster (2 hops)
to be a match, but not
   Hilton ==knows==> Charlie_Sheen ==starredIn==> Wall Street ==hasStatus==> blockbuster (3 hops)

That would be quite arbitrary
(and the reason I'd still argue that ex:blockbuster doesn't carry a lot of meaning in this case).

> I find that to be quite useful but I also see how you probably would like to
> restrict it in certain scenarios as you suggested.

> Does this clarify it? Does it make any sense to you?

Yes, I see the two scenarios, thanks!

I'd be strongly in favor of supporting them both:
i.e., being able to say that a property _directly_ applies to elements of the resulting collection resource,
and being able to say that it doesn't directly apply to the elements themselves.

(And, in the latter case, perhaps say how it does apply then, maybe through property paths.)

Cheers,

Ruben

Received on Monday, 17 February 2014 21:04:16 UTC