Re: How to avoid that collections "break" relationships (ISSUE-41)

On May 26, 2014, at 10:41 PM, "Markus Lanthaler" <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net> wrote:
> 
> Hi folks,
> 
> Unfortunately it took a bit longer than expected but I've now created the
> wiki page summarizing all possible design that have been discussed. I
> re-read the whole thread. I tried to summarize very similar proposals and
> also tried to enumerate a few pros & cons of each proposal.
> 
> The summary can be found here:
> 
> 
> https://www.w3.org/community/hydra/wiki/Avoid_that_collections_%22break%22_r
> elationships
> 
> Feel free to edit the page if you have something to add.
> 
> The design I like most is the one that one I summarized as "Link to the
> collection via a generic property". Specifically this one:
> 
>    </alice> hydra:hasCollection <alice/friends> .
> 
>    </alice/friends/> hydra:manages [
>      [hydra|rdf]:property schema:knows ;
>      [hydra|rdf]:subject </alice> .
>    ] .

Don't thing rdf:subject works, as it's domain is rdf:Statement, and I don't think we want to invoke Reification, so best stick with hydra:property/subject.

I also need hydra:object for some of the the reverse use-cases.

I presume the domain of hydra:manages is hydra:Collection.

>    {
>      "@id": "/alice",
>      "hasCollection": {
>        "@id": "/alice/friends",
>        "manages": {
>          "property": "schema:knows",
>          "subject": "/alice"
>        }
>      }
>    }
> 
> I could also live with the "Use of a separate property to reference
> collections" proposal but I'm not really a big fan of the "Use of a blank
> node collection member to indirectly point to the collection" and "Use of an
> operation with an explicitly defined target" proposals.
> 
> To keep this focused, let's try to first decide on the design before we
> start discussing the terms we end up using.

Although I think this could also work with rdfs:seeAlso, I think this is right direction.

Gregg

> Cheers,
> Markus
> 
> 
> --
> Markus Lanthaler
> @markuslanthaler
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 27 May 2014 07:02:05 UTC