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: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 11:09:39 +0200
To: <public-linked-data-fragments@w3.org>
Message-ID: <020b01cf8b9e$34a13ef0$9de3bcd0$@gmx.net>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:29:42 UTC