RE: Actions - an update and call for review

On Monday, November 18, 2013 7:39 PM, Sam Goto wrote:
> > > The other difference is that gmail allows you to specify requirements
> > > for "sub-properties": you can say that
> > > is a required property in the Action instance (example). Thoughts?
> >
> > That's a bit underspecified in Hydra at the moment I think. Currently
> > idea is to use a property's range which again is a class that specifies
> > supportedProperties. That way you get your overall structure. I don't
> > particularly like micro-syntaxes such as
> > because they tend to work well just in a few very-well defined cases. In
> > this case, e.g., I see problems if you need to mix multiple vocabularies
> > (granted, not something typically cares much about).
> Any other case where this wouldn't work well?

I haven't thought about this much yet but another case might be if you have
a property whose values may be of different types.

The value of a "creator" property, e.g., could be either a company or a
person. If it is a company you may want to require the company's name and
its homepage. When it's a person you require the given name and the last
name. Please note that those properties are required.

But as said.. I need to think about this a bit more

Markus Lanthaler

Received on Monday, 18 November 2013 19:57:28 UTC