Re: Call for consensus on collection design (ISSUE-41)

A question:

What about using

  "managesProperty": "schema:knows",
  "managesSubject": "/alice"

instead of

  "manages": {
    "property": "schema:knows",
    "subject": "/alice"
  }

?

Cheers,
Andreas
---


McBennett, Pat:
> I really like this proposal (so +1), but my only concern (and this is certainly not an objection), is that currently all our RDF is 'clean' (in that I have literally no blank nodes), and ideally I'd like to keep it that way, while of course still supporting Hydra collections.
> 
> I know I could easily introduce a named node myself (or skolemize), but would it make sense for the spec to at least allude to the controversy around blank nodes [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], and offered a non-normative approach (i.e. a convention) for those who wish to avoid them as much as possible (for example, the use of '/alice/friends/meta' below where the use of '/meta' is a simple convention to avoid blank nodes). Of course for those who don't care, allowing the use of blank nodes is fine too.
> 
>    {
>      "@id": "/alice",
>      "collection": {
>        "@id": "/alice/friends",
>        "@type": "Collection",
>        "manages": {
>          "@id": "/alice/friends/meta",
>          "property": "schema:knows",
>          "subject": "/alice"
>        }
>      }
>    }
>    
> ... and in Turtle:
> 
>    </alice> hydra:collection </alice/friends> .
>    </alice/friends> a hydra:Collection ;
>        hydra:manages </alice/friends/meta> .
> 
>    </alice/friends/meta> hydra:property schema:knows ;
>        hydra:subject </alice> .
> 
> Or is the concensus that this would just be cluttering the specification, and blank nodes are 'fine really' (as seems to be the consensus from the JSON-LD group [6])?
> 
> [1] http://richard.cyganiak.de/blog/2011/03/blank-nodes-considered-harmful/
> [2] http://milicicvuk.com/blog/2011/07/14/problems-of-the-rdf-model-blank-nodes/
> [3] http://www.w3.org/2009/12/rdf-ws/papers/ws23
> [4] http://aidanhogan.com/docs/bnodes.pdf
> [5] http://manu.sporny.org/2013/rdf-identifiers/
> 
> [6] https://github.com/mcollina/levelgraph-jsonld/issues/8
> 
> Pat.
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Markus Lanthaler [mailto:markus.lanthaler@gmx.net]
>> Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2014 4:17 PM
>> To: public-hydra@w3.org
>> Subject: Call for consensus on collection design (ISSUE-41)
>>
>> Hello everyone,
>>
>> Over the past few weeks, we have debated the issues around collections and
>> seem to have found a solution that works for everyone. The proposal is to
>> introduce four new properties, namely hydra:collection (please note, not
>> *has*Collection as we don't use that style for any other property),
>> hydra:manages, hydra:subject, and hydra:object (hydra:property already
>> exists). These properties then allow to link collections to entities as
>> follows:
>>
>>    {
>>      "@id": "/alice",
>>      "collection": {
>>        "@id": "/alice/friends",
>>        "@type": "Collection",
>>        "manages": {
>>          "property": "schema:knows",
>>          "subject": "/alice"
>>        }
>>      }
>>    }
>>
>> ... and in Turtle:
>>
>>    </alice> hydra:collection </alice/friends> .
>>    </alice/friends> a hydra:Collection ;
>>        hydra:manages [
>>            hydra:property schema:knows ;
>>            hydra:subject </alice> .
>>        ] .
>>
>>
>> This serves as a call for consensus on the proposed solution. Before I
>> proceed with marking the issue as resolved and implementing the changes in
>> the spec, I would like to ask if anyone has any concerns or objections against
>> this proposal.
>>
>> Please submit your comments by Wednesday, July 9th.
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Markus
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Markus Lanthaler
>> @markuslanthaler
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 3 July 2014 16:32:02 UTC