W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-hydra@w3.org > June 2014

RE: How to avoid that collections "break" relationships (ISSUE-41)

From: McBennett, Pat <McBennettP@DNB.com>
Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2014 04:11:15 -0500
To: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>, "public-hydra@w3.org" <public-hydra@w3.org>
Message-ID: <52EE3F4A5E7F194A963FE14B2DDBDBFE2CAA3B722C@DNBEXCH01.dnbint.net>
Hi Markus,

Great job on the Wiki page - much appreciated.

I have a very quick question - are you intentionally using both the terms 'Collection' and 'List' interchangeably on this page? I find the mixed use jarring and confusing. So can we stick to a just single term, and maybe have a separate discussion to decide which one is better?

At the top of the Wiki you could state: "The use of the term 'List' or 'Collection' is currently undecided, but for consistency within this document, we shall use 'XXXX'".

(For the record, my vote (currently!) is for 'List').

Pat.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Markus Lanthaler [mailto:markus.lanthaler@gmx.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2014 6:41 AM
> To: public-hydra@w3.org
> Subject: RE: How to avoid that collections "break" relationships (ISSUE-41)
> 
> Hi folks,
> 
> Unfortunately it took a bit longer than expected but I've now created the
> wiki page summarizing all possible design that have been discussed. I re-read
> the whole thread. I tried to summarize very similar proposals and also tried
> to enumerate a few pros & cons of each proposal.
> 
> The summary can be found here:
> 
> 
> https://www.w3.org/community/hydra/wiki/Avoid_that_collections_%22br
> eak%22_r
> elationships
> 
> Feel free to edit the page if you have something to add.
> 
> The design I like most is the one that one I summarized as "Link to the
> collection via a generic property". Specifically this one:
> 
>     </alice> hydra:hasCollection <alice/friends> .
> 
>     </alice/friends/> hydra:manages [
>       [hydra|rdf]:property schema:knows ;
>       [hydra|rdf]:subject </alice> .
>     ] .
> 
> 
>     {
>       "@id": "/alice",
>       "hasCollection": {
>         "@id": "/alice/friends",
>         "manages": {
>           "property": "schema:knows",
>           "subject": "/alice"
>         }
>       }
>     }
> 
> I could also live with the "Use of a separate property to reference
> collections" proposal but I'm not really a big fan of the "Use of a blank node
> collection member to indirectly point to the collection" and "Use of an
> operation with an explicitly defined target" proposals.
> 
> To keep this focused, let's try to first decide on the design before we start
> discussing the terms we end up using.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> Markus
> 
> 
> --
> Markus Lanthaler
> @markuslanthaler
> 
> 
> 
Received on Sunday, 1 June 2014 09:11:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 15:53:59 UTC