- From: Ruben Verborgh <ruben.verborgh@ugent.be>
- Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 20:40:15 +0000
- To: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
- Cc: public-hydra@w3.org
>> 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? It was inspired by OWL's property restriction, but I can't really see advantages either for our use. >> 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 I know! > 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. Or you could say it the other way: it would enable more specific properties. Right now, the domain of "hydra:required" is quite open. requiredProperty would be really specific: if you want to make this kind of request, then you need to specify that property. >> 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. Certainly XxxxxxProperty will cause problems because the thing is not an rdf:Property (but has a property property, etc :-) I could live with PropertyXxxxxx, such as PropertyRestriction. Just the particular instance of "……Description" is a bit clumsy because RDF things are always descriptions. Best, Ruben
Received on Monday, 10 March 2014 20:40:49 UTC