- From: Ruben Verborgh <ruben.verborgh@ugent.be>
- Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 20:34:40 +0000
- To: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>
- Cc: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>, "public-hydra@w3.org" <public-hydra@w3.org>
>>> 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. > > You lost me; why wouldn't cardinality (or simply "multiplicity") not have a domain of hydra:PropertyRestriction? Markus said that "_:class hydra:xxxxxxProperty _:prop" doesn't scale. I say that it doesn't scale differently than "_:class hydra:propertyRestriction [ hydra:property _:prop; hydra:xxxxxx true ]". But I was to quick in saying that; this only applies to boolean properties but not others. With "different domain", I thus meant that hydra:xxxxxxProperty would have hydra:Class, and hydra:xxxxxx would have hydra:PropertyRestriction as domain. > 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. > > Could you illustrate this? “A class can have a supportedProperty that is a SupportedProperty but not a Real property, but it has a property property that points to the Real property.” “Property restriction” is fine in that sense. But does it convey the notion that a certain property can be used? Best, Ruben
Received on Monday, 10 March 2014 20:35:15 UTC