Re: remove hydra:Resource and hydra:Class

and hydra:description. But you see where this is heading. People will 
have to learn about owl and rdfs before they can use hydra for their 
restful services. This is assuming that hydra is not only for people who 
live in the rdf universe.

For practical reasons and to ease adoption it is a good thing if it is 
sufficient to learn about one vocabulary that covers the semantics of a 
ReST Service, and domain-specific vocabularies on the other hand.
Having one vocab also makes it quite easy to define a set of semantics a 
hydra-conformant client must, should and may support. Sure, I can say 
anything about any resource, but I cannot expect that the hydra client 
will understand everything I say.

At this point I do not think we should try to express as much as 
possible in pure rdfs and owl in the :ApiDocumentation and the resources 
themselves. Rather we need a "complete" set of semantics a hydra client 
can be expected to understand. The lithmus test for completeness: if a 
property or class may be useful for a restful service, it should be in 
hydra.

We must certainly strike a balance here. But the radical pureness seems 
not right to me.

Best regards,
Dietrich

Am 11.01.2015 um 22:34 schrieb Thomas Hoppe:
> maybe also hydra:title
>
> :-)
>
> On 01/11/2015 10:18 PM, Ruben Verborgh wrote:
>>> Following this train of thought one would also have to question the added value of the hydra:Link class instead of using rdf:Property or owl:ObjectProperty.
>> Fair enough. As far as I'm concerned: to be discussed next :-)
>>
>> Ruben
>