Re: Define/change the range of "supportedProperties" (ISSUE-37)

>> 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