- From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
- Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 11:09:39 +0200
- To: <public-linked-data-fragments@w3.org>
On 18 Jun 2014 at 10:57, Jindřich Mynarz wrote: > On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 1:09 AM, Markus Lanthaler 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. We were discussing quite a couple of things :-) > 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. Yeah, that's true. But I think we should rather fix the description and not the domain. Or we use schema:domainIncludes (probably better). hydra:search isn't very well defined at the moment. > 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." OK. -- Markus Lanthaler @markuslanthaler
Received on Thursday, 19 June 2014 09:10:10 UTC