AW: Hi // Comments on the Hydra spec

Thank you very much.

> These are good places to start:
> - https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-hydra/2015Jan/0022.html
> - https://github.com/HydraCG/Specifications/issues/90

After I read this, I share your point of view. However, it has not really been a debate yet: nobody argued to keep the vocabulary as it is...

> There's probably no place in such a system where you'd have to use hydra:Resource and hydra:Class explicitly.

Sorry, I wrote this too fast. It is less related to this hydra:Class/hydra:Resource story than to the issue tracker demo. In the latter, the classes vocab:User and vocab:Issue are defined as instances of hydra:Class, while they have no rdfs:subClassOf relation. It sounds rather strange to me.

Let assume I'd like to semantically describe some automation devices -sensors or actuators- and both types support the property "ex:deviceID" (or whatever). I'd naturally wish to define an abstract resource "ex:Device", so that "hydra:Class" > "ex:Device" > "ex:Sensor", "ex:Actuator" (hydra:Class is still there, say). I guess I'm free to do it. But why then isn't it this way in the issue tracker demo? Is there a specific reason?

Cheers,
Victor Charpenay

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Ruben Verborgh [mailto:ruben.verborgh@ugent.be]
Gesendet: Montag, 24. August 2015 10:48
An: Charpenay, Victor (ext)
Cc: public-hydra@w3.org
Betreff: Re: Hi // Comments on the Hydra spec

Hi Victor,

> If so, may you give me a hint on where to search in the mail archive (e.g. which mail subject)?

These are good places to start:
- https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-hydra/2015Jan/0022.html
- https://github.com/HydraCG/Specifications/issues/90

> 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.

There's probably no place in such a system where you'd have to use hydra:Resource and hydra:Class explicitly.

Also, in RDF, classes are instances by definition, i.e., all classes are instances of rdfs:Class.

Best,

Ruben

Received on Friday, 28 August 2015 15:28:21 UTC