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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Markus Lanthaler [mailto:markus.lanthaler@gmx.net]
> Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2014 9:59 PM
> To: public-hydra@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Call for consensus on collection design (ISSUE-41)
> 
> On 3 Jul 2014 at 20:57, McBennett, Pat wrote:
> > Ruben Verborgh wrote on July 03, 2014 6:50 PM:
> >>>   </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.
> 
> Are you sure you are talking about the same thing? As far as I understood it,
> Ruben wants to have
>   - a name for the "manages block", i.e., the range of hydra:manage
>   - the domain of hydra:manage (not 100% if that was a typo or not)

Well, it's 'hydra:manages' from your original post:

   </alice> hydra:collection </alice/friends> .
   </alice/friends> a hydra:Collection ;
       hydra:manages [
           hydra:property schema:knows ;
           hydra:subject </alice> .
       ] .

> 
> You said you wanted to identify "manages blocks" with an IRI and
> establishing a best practice of how those IRIs should look like (collection IRI
> + /meta)
> 

Well, I certainly thought Ruben wanted to mint an IRI for the 'manages block' too, but maybe all he wanted was as you state above. As for me, I think I was just getting overly paranoid about BNodes in general, and as you pointed out elsewhere, they probably are 'fine really'.

> 
> --
> Markus Lanthaler
> @markuslanthaler
>

Received on Thursday, 3 July 2014 22:02:09 UTC