- From: Ruben Verborgh <ruben.verborgh@ugent.be>
- Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2014 17:34:36 +0100
- To: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
- Cc: Hydra <public-hydra@w3.org>
> You shouldn't have omitted the sentence that followed this: > > About the only thing I can think of is to query for > VariableRepresentation. > > :-) Oh yeah, sure :-) >> Suppose we have a GUI to build Hydra templates. >> The knowledge that MyXyz is a VariableRepresentation >> would allow the GUI to offer it as possible value for variableRepresentation. > > Anything else? The scenarios I can think of ar variations of this; basically, the possibility to say: “this thing is like those two others”. >>> Maybe... but much more interesting would be >>> to know how to use those (newly found) representation formats. We can't >>> describe that at the moment. Thus I see limited value in introducing such a >>> superclass and a range. >> >> How about "I don't understand representation X, so I'm trying Y instead". > > Not sure I follow... Nah, never mind, it's a variation of the above use case. > Nothing.. as you said, machines are dumb. Humans might be able to infer > something from the name (URL) or by reading the natural language definition > they get by dereferencing the URL... Another benefit then: that somebody else can create a new property, and say that the range is Hydra's VariableRepresentations. We allow reuse that way. > which reminds me that we should add a > pointer from the concepts definition to the relevant section in the spec > (rdfs:seeAlso?). Yes, great idea. Ruben
Received on Wednesday, 31 December 2014 16:35:11 UTC