- From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
- Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 23:49:52 -0700
- To: <public-hydra@w3.org>
- Cc: "'Gregg Kellogg'" <gregg@greggkellogg.net>
On Tuesday, May 27, 2014 12:02 AM, Gregg Kellogg wrote: > On May 26, 2014, at 10:41 PM, "Markus Lanthaler" wrote: > > 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. Good point. Shall we introduce a class that represents the range of hydra:manages or is that not necessary in your opinion? > I also need hydra:object for some of the the reverse use-cases. Yep. I just tried to keep the examples simple. If we choose this approach, I would strongly favor to also introduce hydra:object. > I presume the domain of hydra:manages is hydra:Collection. Yeah (even though perhaps it actually make more sense to switch to something like schema:domainIncludes for Hydra than using RDF's domain. In any case, I've already updated the wiki to clarify what is meant. -- Markus Lanthaler @markuslanthaler
Received on Wednesday, 28 May 2014 06:50:32 UTC