Re: Few concepts

HI Karol,

> I’d prefer:
> my:restOperation a hydra:Operation.
> my:restOperation hydra:expects _:someResource.
> _:someResource a hydra:Resource.
> _:someResource imaginary:ofClass schema:Action.
> 
> This approach is more consistant from ontological point of view. I think it also seems more logical - operation expects a resource that matches some criterias, in this case it's of a specific class.

But that's not what your RDF above says.
It says that the operation return _:someResource.

Even if you define "hydra:expects" very liberally,
we'll still run into problems (as the "imaginary" shows).
_:someResource is not a resource but a prototype for a resource.

> 2. Collections

Just one remark here:

> Additional details like first/last page could come in handy for the client

Pages are certainly not details; we need to get this straight.

> 4. Reasoners - I don't expect the client (i.e. browser with JavaScript on board) to have a reasoner.

Agree, but:

> Unfortunately, Hydra uses OWL/RDFS elements here and there enabling very complicated logical construct to be in place.

The fact that Hydra is modelled with OWL/RDFS does not mean in any way clients would need a reasoner.
Nearly every RDF document anybody ever used had properties in there that were modelled with OWL,
yet few clients actually had reasoning support. I mean, even rdf:type is modelled that way.

> Example: hydra:property has a range of rdf:Property and this class can have in it's range an owl:Restriction - this is the shortest path to problems.

No.

> I think we should consider moving to something that is simpler.

The arguments to support that conclusion are wrong:
it's not because an ontology is correctly modelled in OWL that anything would need a reasoner.

Furthermore, whether we model it in OWL or not, that doesn't change facts.
I.e., hydra:property will always be an rdf:Property, whether we explicitly model it like that or not.
The very fact that we use it in the property position of a triple, makes it an rdf:Property, by definition.
Nothing we can nor should do about that. Quite the contrary, better to be explicit about it.

> I think we should minimize situations when reasoner would be the only option for the client.

Of course, but there are currently no such cases as far as I know.

Best,

Ruben

Received on Friday, 9 October 2015 08:39:39 UTC