- From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
- Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2015 21:58:54 +0100
- To: "'Hydra'" <public-hydra@w3.org>
On 31 Dez 2014 at 17:44, Ruben Verborgh wrote: >> I completely agree that it would be nice to do >> so in some cases but does it change anything apart from making the resulting >> URLs longer/shorter? >> >> Absolutely. I just don't see how mixing representation formats helps clients >> or servers or enables new functionality that can't be realized otherwise. > > The use case I mentioned earlier would not be supported: > > Extending the triple pattern fragments interface with a structured free-text object search: > ?subject / ?predicate / ?object / ?freeText > where the ?freeText field allows control characters (*, ?, .). > Then the first 3 are IRIs/literals, the fourth is free-text. I still think a datatype would be more appropriate for this use case than a separate variable representation format. > We cannot simply split this in two forms, > because then we cannot combine a subject filter and a free-text filter. Right > The datatype-based solution might work (even though I dislike that modeling), > but then again we'd have to specify this is allowed for that field. > This is probably best discussed in the freetext thread. Yeah, that's probably better. Are there any other use cases you can think of that would require different variable representations? -- Markus Lanthaler @markuslanthaler
Received on Sunday, 4 January 2015 20:59:19 UTC