AW: Hi // Comments on the Hydra spec

Hi Ruben,

thanks for your reply. Do you mean it [the question of having hydra:Resource] was already discussed in this mailing-list?

If so, may you give me a hint on where to search in the mail archive (e.g. which mail subject)? Or maybe those who fought for it can sum up their arguments? I have no idea if it is a common thing while designing RDFS vocabularies (vs. OWL, where the notion of resource does not even exist), if it is more convenient to serialize to JSON-LD, or whatever.

I'd like to develop a method to automatically turn ontological elements into REST-accessible resources (i.e. automatically generate Hydra specs out of an OWL ontology). Having such a design where classes are practically seen as individuals/class instances does not facilitate the thing, it would be of great help if I understood why.

Regards,
Victor Charpenay

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Ruben Verborgh [mailto:ruben.verborgh@ugent.be] 
Gesendet: Freitag, 24. Juli 2015 18:20
An: Charpenay, Victor (ext)
Cc: public-hydra@w3.org
Betreff: Re: Hi // Comments on the Hydra spec

Hi Victor,

Welcome to the list!

> ˇ         hydra:Resource and hydra:Class are instance of each other. Being an instance of a Resource means being dereferenceable.

While I'm not addressing your question directly, I just want to remark that hydra:Resource has been debated previously.
I myself don't like the concept and would want to see it disappear, but there are other opinions.

Best,

Ruben

Received on Monday, 24 August 2015 08:44:40 UTC