- From: Thomas Hoppe <thomas.hoppe@n-fuse.de>
- Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2015 23:29:09 +0100
- To: Ruben Verborgh <ruben.verborgh@ugent.be>
- CC: public-hydra@w3.org
- Message-ID: <54ADB335.1080203@n-fuse.de>
Ok, so I'm +1 On 01/05/2015 04:30 PM, Ruben Verborgh wrote: > 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 Wednesday, 7 January 2015 22:29:38 UTC