W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-hydra@w3.org > November 2015

RE: request for verification: paging in TPF

From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 22:24:12 +0100
To: <public-linked-data-fragments@w3.org>
Message-ID: <091401d11bfe$25e47f70$71ad7e50$@gmx.net>
On 9 Nov 2015 at 10:01, John Walker wrote:
>> On November 6, 2015 at 9:09 PM Markus wrote:
>> On 6 Nov 2015 at 11:52, Ruben Verborgh wrote:
>>>>> I like that. Another minor tweak
>>>>> The page MUST use hydra:next to reference the next page. If the next
>>>>> page would be (is?) empty, however, it SHOULD NOT be referenced.
>>> Good. Any particular reason for "reference" over "link"?
>> No, it's just a personal preference I guess. I use link mainly as a noun.
>>> I have "would be" because one can discuss whether a next page really
>>> exists if it is empty.
>>>> So to deconstruct this a little, you are in effect saying: a. If
>>>> there is a next page, the current page MUST use hydra:next to
>>>> reference the next page b. The first page of a fragment MAY be empty
>>>> c. Subsequent pages SHOULD NOT be empty
>>> Yes, indeed. That would be an other way to list this.
>>> While it is longer, it might be clearer.
>>> Markus, what do you think?
>> It's very clear and easy to understand but I would prefer it to be a bit
>> shorter. I suspect John wrote it down this way to confirm that he understood
>> it correctly. John, do you have an idea of how to phrase this better while
>> not making it look complex by making it a list?
> Indeed was not suggesting to write this way in the spec, just to confirm
> I understood it correctly.
> Actually I would say the points (b) and (c) would be better added to the
> paragraph that defines what an empty page is:
> A page is considered empty if it does not contain any data triples
> (regardless of metadata and controls). Therefore a page of a Triple
> Pattern Fragment should only be empty when the corresponding Triple
> Pattern Fragment is empty. In all other cases the page SHOULD contain at
> least one data triple.
> Not exactly Shakespeare, but hopefully serves to clarify.

Sounds good to me. I find this very clear and easy to understand.

Markus Lanthaler
Received on Tuesday, 10 November 2015 21:24:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 10 November 2015 21:24:40 UTC