- From: McBennett, Pat <McBennettP@DNB.com>
- Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2014 13:57:26 -0500
- To: Ruben Verborgh <ruben.verborgh@ugent.be>
- CC: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>, "public-hydra@w3.org" <public-hydra@w3.org>
> -----Original Message----- > From: Ruben Verborgh [mailto:ruben.verborgh@ugent.be] > Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2014 6:50 PM > To: McBennett, Pat > Cc: Markus Lanthaler; public-hydra@w3.org > Subject: Re: Call for consensus on collection design (ISSUE-41) > > > </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> > > Note that this is related to the TODO that I propose, i.e., to define what the > object of manages is, sticking a name to it. > Yep, it sure is - in fact I'd say it's exactly the same concern, i.e. the 'blank node-ness' of 'hydra:manages'. I want to avoid blank nodes (where possible), and you want to know its domain and future evolution. But my suggestion was more than a TODO, i.e. I propose stating explicitly in the spec the (potential) problems with blank nodes, *and* a suggested convention for those who want to avoid them (i.e. explicitly name the node with a '/meta' suffix (or '/reify' even!)). I think that would be sufficient, and then we could close the issue without niggly TODOs :) ! > Ruben
Received on Thursday, 3 July 2014 18:57:57 UTC