Re: Remove "rel" from Link

Yep, part of the goal here was to incrementally work towards alignment
with a variety of efforts. Unfortunately, however, I'm giving up on
the trying to make everyone reasonably happy approach. Defining
as:Link as a qualified relationship seems to be the most reasonable
approach given all of the feedback received so far. Yes, there are
some folks who will say as:Link is not required at all, there are some
who will say it needs to be defined entirely differently, there are
some who will say we need a "links" container, etc. At some point,
we're just going to have to draw a line in the sand and pick one that
works reasonably well, even if it makes some folks unhappy.

On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 12:22 PM, Markus Lanthaler
<> wrote:
> On 3 Nov 2014 at 19:17, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ wrote:
>> On 11/03/2014 06:50 PM, James M Snell wrote:
>>> Yes we do. as:Link serves two purposes:
>>> 1. As a marker class used to indicate that the @id can be dereferenced; and
>> Sounds like exactly the same aim as hydra:Link
>> ations
> Yep, AFAICT as:Link is the same as hydra:Resource (not hydra:Link which is for properties whose values are dereferenceable resources... as:preview would be a hydra:Link if it's value is always a dereferenceable resource).
> --
> Markus Lanthaler
> @markuslanthaler

Received on Tuesday, 4 November 2014 20:28:40 UTC