- From: Ruben Verborgh <ruben.verborgh@ugent.be>
- Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 19:17:11 +0000
- To: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
- Cc: public-hydra@w3.org
>> With "supportedProperty" => "supports" that doesn't happen,
>> but "supports" might be vague.
>
> Yeah, I considered that as well. But it is extremely vague, as you say, and
> doesn't blend in with the "supportedClasses" and "supportedOperations".
Oh yes I totally misread that. Apologies!
So you said
>> _:class hydra:supportedProperty foaf:name;
>> hydra:propertyRestriction [ hydra:property foaf:name;
>> hydra:required true ].
That's great. I like that a lot.
Then the range of supportedProperty is simply rdf:Property.
How about this further simplification?
_:class hydra:supportedProperty foaf:name;
hydra:requiredProperty foaf:name.
which would then actually be implied by
_:class hydra:requiredProperty foaf:name.
since hydra:requiredProperty would be a subproperty of hydra:supportedProperty.
I guess something like that has been proposed before,
but looking from where we are now, it seems a good solution really.
It's way better than having a surrogate/proxy property in between.
Best,
Ruben
Received on Monday, 10 March 2014 19:17:46 UTC