- From: François-Paul Servant <francoispaulservant@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 10:03:31 +0100
- To: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
- Cc: <public-hydra@w3.org>
Hi, Markus and Tomasz, thank you! Le 16 mars 2015 à 08:52, Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net> a écrit : > On 14 Mrz 2015 at 19:41, Tomasz Pluskiewicz wrote: >> On 2015-03-13 18:44, Markus Lanthaler wrote: >>> >>> Shouldn't the graph be about the resource that was used to retrieve it? > In >>> other words, doesn't the URL tell you what the main resource is? I do >>> understand that hash URLs etc. complicate this. >>> >> >> Hash or not I think it is a real issue. Another example is when a >> representation is split across multiple urls. Think </bob>, which returns >> >> </bob> a foaf:Person ; foaf:givenName "Bob" . >> >> and </bob/friends> which returns >> >> </bob> foaf:knows </alice>, </frank>, </mike> . >> >> This is especially true for anyone trying to enhance existing JSON API >> so that it becomes JSON-LD: The requested URL </bob/friends> does not >> have to be an actual resource identifier but merely an address for >> additional data about </bob>. This is how many APIs are structured and >> it is indeed an obstacle with RDF Linked Data where we struggle to make >> each URL an identifier. > > I see. cool! (Markus, I'm late in answering your previous message on this topic, sorry). Other use case: when content can be accessed through several URLs, but there is one "canonic URI". "semantic web people" use case: linking the "page" and the "real world thing" A statement using this property, inside the returned graph, is metadata about the graph. It is useful to have it included inside the returned data : things are explicit, data is self contained. That's easier for the client, be it a "headless" one or not. Example of simple application that it allows: indexing set of graphs by "main subject". Aggregation of data based on common (or related) "main subject" > I'm not sure though Hydra is the right place to define such a > property. Are you aware of the related discussions in Schema.org land? > schema:mainEntity, see > > https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/issues/301 > > What we could do, if this proposal gets accepted and people think it would > be useful, is to include an example explaining it to our spec. that's fine for me. The point is that such a property is necessary (at least, I needed it in most if not all of my LD stuff). It's good if data publishers can rely on one recommended property. > > > Cheers, > Markus > > > -- > Markus Lanthaler > @markuslanthaler > > > > Best, fps
Received on Monday, 16 March 2015 09:04:01 UTC