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

RE: Documenting implicit rdfs:domains of Hydra properties

From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 01:09:49 +0200
To: <public-hydra@w3.org>
Message-ID: <020a01cf8a81$3da791c0$b8f6b540$@gmx.net>
On 16 Jun 2014 at 00:05, Jindřich Mynarz wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 10:07 PM, Markus Lanthaler wrote:
>>> * hydra:apiDocumentation - I assume that any hydra:Resource is
>>>   compatible with this property.
>>> * hydra:freetextQuery - hydra:Resource?
>>> * hydra:search - hydra:Resource?
>> 
>> It is rdf:Resource, basically everything. Since everything is implicitly of type
> > rdf:Resource, it is unnecessary to state this explicitly.
> 
> Hydra describes hydra:Resource as a rdfs:subClassOf rdfs:Resource, not
> as its owl:equivalentClass, which is why I thought it might be more
> specific

Right. It is the subclass of Web resources, i.e., derefenceable resources.


> and therefore more meaningful to use in rdfs:domain
> assertions. However, if its rdfs:domain is meant to be rdfs:Resource,
> then you're right to say that it's unnecessary to state it in the RDF
> description of the vocabulary, but it still might be helpful to
> document the absence of rdfs:domain isn't an omission.

I thought that's such a common pattern that it's not necessary to document!? I don't feel strongly about this, we can also just assert that the domain is rdfs:Resource... but it blows up the vocabulary unnecessarily



--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler
Received on Tuesday, 17 June 2014 23:10:18 UTC

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