- From: Ruben Verborgh <ruben.verborgh@ugent.be>
- Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2014 19:46:08 +0200
- To: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>
- Cc: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>, "public-hydra@w3.org" <public-hydra@w3.org>
Hi Gregg, >> Hence, the following is sufficient (1): >> </alice/friends> :manages [ >> :subject </alice>; >> :property schema:knows; >> ]. >> (where "manages" might not be the best term). > > This is pretty much what Markus and I came up with, and makes manages look like LD Fragments, to me. Jup, this looks like a basic Linked Data Fragment. >> Terminology suggestion (just to help us think): >> </alice/friends> :isCollectionOf [ >> rdf:type :CollectionItemTemplate; >> :subject </alice>; >> :property schema:knows; >> ]. >> (Note that the rdf:type could be hidden.) > > I don't see that isCollectionOf does more than manages It doesn't to anything more, I just tried to make "manages" more tangible/concrete. (cfr. components named “Manager” in Java, what do they do? :-) > I also don't see what a CollectionItemTemplate is An attempt to identify what the blank node is/means. To me, that node is a template of an item in the collection. Note that we could really use rdf:subject and rdf:predicate here (which coincidentally comes very close to basic LDFs); the range _and_ domain would work. > and even though property/subject/object should have a domain, it should probably be more generic, such as IndirectResourceManager Exactly. CollectionItemTemplate would thus be a subclass of IndirectResourceManager, to allow for other selections besides triple patterns. But we'll need to come up with better names. > but in common practice it would be omitted. Absolutely. (But still, the blank node needs to be "something", to help us think about it.) >> The semantics would then mandate be that: >> - for a given template, minimum 1 and maximum 2 components should be used >> - the collection contains all items of the dataset that match the template (possibly paged) > > +1, although subject and object may be inferred from other statements. Fair enough, but dangerous for lighter clients that don't do inferences. Best, Ruben
Received on Monday, 2 June 2014 17:46:43 UTC