- From: Ruben Verborgh <ruben.verborgh@ugent.be>
- Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2015 16:30:17 +0100
- To: Thomas Hoppe <thomas.hoppe@n-fuse.de>
- Cc: public-hydra@w3.org
Hi Thomas,
> I thought about this in the past but settled with the simple fact that
> the difference is the fact that hydra:Resource hints for the ability to dereference.
But that's not an ontological concern.
An ontology relates concepts;
whether or not those concepts dereference
depends on the addressing scheme you use to identify them.
> But aren't statements like this the actual problem?:
>
> {
> "@id": "hydra:entrypoint",
> "@type": "hydra:Link",
> "domain": "hydra:ApiDocumentation",
> "label": "entrypoint",
> "range": "hydra:Resource"
> }
>
> If we change to this:
>
> {
> "@id": "hydra:entrypoint",
> "@type": "hydra:Link",
> "domain": "hydra:ApiDocumentation",
> "label": "entrypoint",
> "range": "rdfs:Resource"
> }
>
> Isn't this saying that if we have a rdfs:Resource which
> has an hydra:entrypoint, the resource is also a hydra:ApiDocumentation.
Yes it does, and it already does currently.
At the moment, anything that has a hyra:endtrypoint property is,
by definition, a hydra:ApiDocumentation, hydra:Resource, and rdfs:Resource.
But that is said by the "domain" line, not the "range" line.
Best,
Ruben
Received on Monday, 5 January 2015 15:30:51 UTC