- From: Chris Chapman <chris@pentandra.com>
- Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2015 17:38:40 -0700
- To: public-hydra@w3.org
- Message-ID: <20150106003840.GD4311@rach.conce.rto>
On Mon, Jan 05, 2015 at 12:58:30PM +0100, Ruben Verborgh wrote: > Dear all, > > For reasons of simplicity and vocabulary reuse, > could we remove hydra:Resource and hydra:Class? > > Right now, everything in the Hydra Core Vocabulary > is a hydra:Resource, and all classes are hydra:Class. > > The only difference between hydra:Resource and rdfs:Resource > is that hydra:Resource instances are dereferenceable; > and rdfs:Resource itself adds no semantics whatsoever, since > “all things described by RDF are instances of the class rdfs:Resource” [1]. > > Dereferenceability is orthogonal to ontological relationships, > and should IMHO be a recommended practice in the spec > rather than an ontological relationship. It does not add anything at all: > - If a client wants to dereference, the absence of hydra:Resource > does *not* mean something is *not* dereferenceable. > - If a client wants to dereference a hydra:Resource, > it takes the exact same steps it would for something > that is not explicitly labeled a hydra:Resource. > - The only difference is the “guarantee” offered by the ontology > that something is dereferenceable; but actually doing the dereferencing > and finding out whether something is dereferenceable > involves the exact same step, i.e., GETting the thing. > No gain there. > > In addition, hydra:Class is simply the disjunction > of hydra:Resource and rdfs:Class, > so by the above reasoning, we can simply make it rdfs:Class. > > It seems to me that hydra:Resource and hydra:Class > are artifacts of something that no longer has importance. > I therefore propose to simplify and clarify the ontology by: > - removing hydra:Resource and mentions of it; > - removing hydra:Class and replace mentions of it by rdfs:Class. > If necessary, we can add something to the spec about dereferencing, > but I don't think that this would add something. > > Any thoughts on this? > If we all agree, I can make the necessary edits to the spec. Completely agree. While I appreciate the sentiment, dereferenceability cannot be enforced at the semantic level anyways. -- Chris Chapman Pentandra Research Solutions, Inc. Breaking Research Barriers Tel: +1 435 294 2964 Email: chris@pentandra.com Twitter: @cd_chapman Website: http://pentandra.com
Received on Tuesday, 6 January 2015 00:39:19 UTC