- From: Ruben Verborgh <ruben.verborgh@ugent.be>
- Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2014 14:25:21 +0200
- To: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
- Cc: public-hydra@w3.org
Hi Markus, > You can't DELETE /ruben because that would remove all information about > /ruben. An UNLINK "knows /ruben" on /markus is thus the most design IMO. I'm unsure; LINK and UNLINK usage is still too premature. A PATCH would be clearer to me. (But anyways, we're losing track of the original point I'm afraid.) >> In this particular case, my judgment is that "manages" is too vague >> and is better served by a more specific property. > > OK, let's try it. What other terms apart from isCollectionOf would be fine > for for you? Brainstorm below (not necessarily all valid options, just to keep ideas flowing): - </alice/friends> :collects [ :subject </alice> :property foaf:knows ] - </alice/friends> :collectionTemplate [ :subject </alice> :property foaf:knows ] - </alice/friends> :hasCollectionTemplate [ :subject </alice> :property foaf:knows ] - </alice/friends> :contains [ :subject </alice> :property foaf:knows ] - </alice/friends> :containsTemplate [ :subject </alice> :property foaf:knows ] - </alice/friends> :consistsOf [ :subject </alice> :property foaf:knows ] - </alice/friends> :provides [ :subject </alice> :property foaf:knows ] - </alice/friends> :lists [ :subject </alice> :property foaf:knows ] - </alice/friends> :organizes [ :subject </alice> :property foaf:knows ] - </alice/friends> :handles [ :subject </alice> :property foaf:knows ] (Note that these last proposals go in the direction of manages; I'm trying to pinpoint the term more precisely—not saying I'm succeeding :-) >> 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. > > Really? If I understand you correctly, you don't like "manages" that much > because it implies some form of activity/behavior/interaction even though > the collection could be completely static, i.e., not support any > state-changing operations. Is that correct? No, because it (only) emphasizes the action, and IMHO far less expresses the intent that X is simply a collection of Y (which seems to be the intended primary semantics, cfr. "it indicates what kind of triples can be found in the collection."). > Let's say the "manages block" (as it was called in a different thread) is a > "triple template", a "relationship", or a "relationship template". Would you > agree that both the collection and the LINK operation "deal" with such > templates? Does something like relationshipTemplate look any better for you? It emphasizes the collection membership more, yes. >>> 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 > > Sorry, you lost me here. Isn't dropping manages and have a clear name for... > exactly the same as renaming manages? Yeah, another way would be 1) no 2) yes; doesn't really matter :-) >> Note: whatever the property is going to be, >> we must definitely also ensure the "manages block" has a name. >> Right now, it's hard to say what a "manages block" is and isn't. > > Anyway, do you think "triple template", "relationship", or "relationship > template" would be reasonable names for this? Sure! Although it depends on the eventual property name. "manages" and "triple template" don't combine well; "relationshipTemplate" and "relationship template" of course do. Cheers, Ruben PS I don't feel as strongly about this particular issue as some e-mails seem to indicate; I just want to help ensure that we pick the right names for terms.
Received on Tuesday, 10 June 2014 12:25:58 UTC