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

Re: Documenting implicit rdfs:domains of Hydra properties

From: Jindřich Mynarz <mynarzjindrich@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 10:57:58 +0200
Message-ID: <CAE=8Bu8AX+V5n30aYeQNv-O7SWJoKuq6dpA9piU6hiu=hjt9+A@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-hydra@w3.org
Hi Markus,

On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 1:09 AM, Markus Lanthaler
<markus.lanthaler@gmx.net> wrote:
>> 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

I believe we're discussing the documentation and rdfs:domain of
hydra:search. It's currently defined as "A IRI template that can be
used to query a collection" (note a typo: "A*n* IRI"), which hints
that it's rdfs:domain is hydra:Collection. This is not captured
explicitly in the RDF description of Hydra.

If we're speaking about completing rdfs:domain of rdfs:Resource for
properties with undefined rdfs:domain, then I think it suffices to
state this in the specification, similarly to the ISSUE 6: "Mention
that Hydra classes are dereferenceable resources."

- Jindřich

-- 
Jindřich Mynarz
http://mynarz.net/#jindrich
Received on Wednesday, 18 June 2014 08:58:45 UTC

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