- From: Ruben Verborgh <ruben.verborgh@ugent.be>
- Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2014 17:53:59 +0200
- To: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
- Cc: public-hydra@w3.org
Hi Markus, > So, if we would like to describe that an HTTP LINK operation supports > the creation of certain links, how would we describe that? FWIW, this is better modelled using a collection and I would simply do it that way. > We would need to introduce a separate property to do so, right? Yeah. > It is a tradeoff, do we want to keep the vocabulary small at the cost of > vaguer names or do we prefer to have more explicit names at the cost of a > bigger vocabulary? I generally lean towards the former. As a general strategy, yes. But that's a heuristic, things have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. In this particular case, my judgment is that “manages” is too vague and is better served by a more specific property. >>> We might decide to reuse it at a later point to >>> describe operations in more detail. It could for instance also be used to >>> indicate that an HTTP Link operation can be used to manage certain >>> subject/property pairs. >> >> But that's not aligned with what you wanted to express above: >> >>> it indicates what kind of triples can be found in the collection. > > Why not? Doesn't the information about "what kind of triples can be found in > the collection" help clients to decide "why they might or might not be > interested in a collection"? Miscommunication, sorry—I was referring to the non-alignment of: - “it indicates what kind of triples can be found in the collection.” - “It could for instance also be used to indicate that an HTTP Link operation can be used to manage certain subject/property pairs.” Those are different things. >> This reinforces my belief we're actually looking for :isCollectionOf >> of something similar. >> It's really those declarative semantics we need here, >> not the operational semantics. > > Does this imply that you would like to have a different property for the > operation I outlined above? Yes. > Summarized, I think we found a pattern for collections which everyone can > live with. AFAICT, there are three open issues: > > 1) Do we want to introduce something like hasCollection? > 2) Should we rename "manages"? For me those, two belong together: drop manages and have a clearer name for “it indicates what kind of triples can be found in the collection.” But to simplify: 1) +1 2) no, drop it > 3) Should we reuse rdf:subject/predicate/object instead of introducing > hydra:subject/property/object (predicate or property?) 3) 0 Best, Ruben
Received on Saturday, 7 June 2014 15:54:34 UTC