- From: Ruben Verborgh <ruben.verborgh@ugent.be>
- Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2014 23:10:07 +0200
- To: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
- Cc: public-hydra@w3.org, public-lod@w3.org, W3C Web Schemas Task Force <public-vocabs@w3.org>
Hi Markus,
>> Check that collection X to find out if Markus knows more of them.
>
> That second sentence is where this approach loses its appeal for me. IMO, it
> doesn't really suggest to go and check "collection X to find out if Markus
> knows more of them". Of course, you can always do, but why should you.
Fully agree of course; but we could look at it the other way:
the server decides what is a good idea to include.
In most cases, it doesn't really make sense to add
</people/markus/friends> foaf:knows [ hydra:memberOf </soccerteams/spain> ].
Okay, Markus knows a Spanish soccer player… Why put it like that?
I realize this is limited as-is, but good for many cases.
And for the other cases, detailing </soccerteams/spain> is the way to go.
> {
> "@id": "/markus",
> "hasRelationshipIndirection": {
> "property": "schema:knows",
> "resource": "/markus/friends"
> }
> }
I like the concept, maybe not this exact execution.
Concretely, “hasRelationshipIndirection" is quite impossible to intuitively grasp.
Something along the lines of
{
"@id": "/markus",
"hasList": {
"property": "schema:knows",
"object": "/markus/friends"
}
}
seems easier to me. (hasList, hasMany, relatesTo, relatesToMany, …)
> It could also be tweaked into something like
>
> {
> "@id": "/markus",
> "hasRelationshipIndirector": {
> "schema:knows": "/markus/friends"
> }
> }
>
> so that it works nicely with property paths.
But then (and this is where I would agree with Peter)
you're really going beyond RDF model semantics;
there is some string interpretation required.
I don't like that, even though it is more general.
Best,
Ruben
Received on Monday, 31 March 2014 21:10:45 UTC