- From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
- Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 01:09:49 +0200
- To: <public-hydra@w3.org>
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