- From: Thomas Hoppe <thomas.hoppe@n-fuse.de>
- Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2015 12:18:16 +0100
- To: Karol Szczepański <karol.szczepanski@gmail.com>, public-hydra@w3.org
Hi Karol, On 11/16/2015 10:32 PM, Karol Szczepański wrote: > Hi Thomas > >> Hmm, a property defining an operation does not sound straight forward >> to me and with the current means of hydra this would not be possible >> to express. > > Well, I think it is doable right now. > Hydra's SupportedProperty is a sub-class of hydra's Resource. There is > an "interesting" property named hydra:operation that binds a Resource > with an Operation, thus it won't do any harm to have something like this: > my:Property a hydra:SupportedProperty; hydra:operation my:Operation . > I can imagine a client that could check supported property's > operations and choose an interesting one (i.e. that uses an > IriTemplate mapping wiht hydra:freetextQuery) to do what's needed. ok, but I think this is far to implicit. I favor something like hydra:allowedResource discussed in [1]. > > As for the Dietrich's suggestion regarding allowed values - SHACL > indeed touches that as far as I can remember. Yes and that's good but see my reasoning here [1] why I think this is still not enough. > Only the fact that there is a property with a property > having a certain range and the existence of resources of that type in an > API under a certain > domain (or sub-domain?!) is: > 1.) too many deductions (also technologically too complex if we specify this in OWL) > 2.) In many real life cases insufficient to express the relation logically correct. > > Best > > Karol > [1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-hydra/2015Nov/0128.html
Received on Thursday, 19 November 2015 11:19:10 UTC