- From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
- Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 21:34:08 +0100
- To: "'Ruben Verborgh'" <ruben.verborgh@ugent.be>
- Cc: <public-hydra@w3.org>
On Monday, March 10, 2014 9:01 PM, Ruben Verborgh wrote: > >>>> _: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? > > Almost; "propertyRestriction" maybe might not be the correct term then. No, it wouldn't. > But how would this continue? > Would it be > > _:class hydra:propertyRestriction > [ hydra:property foaf:name; hydra:required true ]; > [ hydra:property foaf:name; hydra:writeonly true ]. > > i.e., independent restrictions like in OWL, or > > _:class hydra:propertyRestriction > [ hydra:property foaf:name; hydra:required true, hydra:writeonly > true ]. Hmm.. I would say the latter but haven't really thought about the former. Is there an advantage of using the former? > i.e., a property definition. > Because in the latter case, "restriction" is probably not the right > name; > and then we're back at the start; because it is in fact a proxy. Mmhhmm > > 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. > > No no, it scales as good as "required", "readonly", "writeonly". > You'd need an equal number of properties; they would just have a > different domain; > i.e., hydra:Class, not hydra:PropertyRestriction. But you would need to attach them to every class/request template even if the same definition is shared by all of them. Instead of reusing a single definition. > > 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. > > I'm still in favor of sticking a name to such a proxy; > but if we have difficulties to find a name that doesn't contain > "property", > I'm afraid it will always remain tricky. Me too... but I probably don't find SupportedProperty or, alternatively, PropertyDescription as confusing as you do. This is not saying that is perfect, you have a completely valid point. -- Markus Lanthaler @markuslanthaler
Received on Monday, 10 March 2014 20:34:43 UTC