- From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
- Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 20:45:52 +0100
- To: "'Ruben Verborgh'" <ruben.verborgh@ugent.be>
- Cc: <public-hydra@w3.org>
On Monday, March 10, 2014 8:17 PM, Ruben Verborgh wrote: > 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. Would you equally like it if the first triple wouldn't be there? > 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. The problem is that it doesn't scale. We already have "required", "readonly", "writeonly" and people will likely want to extend it with cardinality etc. So sooner or later we will need a "proxy" anyway. In this case, I find it better to anticipate it from the beginning as extensions requiring it are very likely to happen. -- Markus Lanthaler @markuslanthaler
Received on Monday, 10 March 2014 19:46:27 UTC