search

HydraCG / Specifications

Specifications created by the Hydra W3C Community Group
Other
139 stars 25 forks source link

Allow SupportedProperty to overwrite a vocabulary's rdfs:label and rdfs:comment #1

Closed lanthaler closed 5 years ago

lanthaler commented 11 years ago

_This was raised by @matleh:_

Another thought: If I want to use that information for form creation, I would like to have control over the label (and maybe even comment), but the label of the property might come from an extern ontology. Would it be feasible, to have a hydra:label that a form creation library could give precedence over rdfs:label?

lanthaler commented 11 years ago

Sure, that would make a lot of sense. Have you seen hydra:title and hydra:description? Those are the two properties I created exactly for such use cases. I didn't use them in any of the examples yet and the API console doesn't support the scenario you describe either but that's definitely something worth implementing and documenting. Thanks.

[http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-hydra/2013Jul/0005.html]

matleh commented 11 years ago

Oh right, these properties slipped under my radar. So one could add a hyrda:title for a hydra:SupportedProperty and then it is up to the implementation of the form creation library to give it precedence over rdfs:label of the associated property.

When I think some more about it, I ask myself, what is the advantage of using hydra:title over rdfs:label? Since the hydra:SupportedProperty is under my control, I could as well use rdfs:label on it.

But probably hydra:title is used in other places, where that might not be true, so it is consistent to always use hydra:title within an ApiDescription, I guess.

lanthaler commented 11 years ago

Oh right, these properties slipped under my radar. So one could add a hyrda:title for a hydra:SupportedProperty and then it is up to the implementation of the form creation library to give it precedence over rdfs:label of the associated property.

Exactly

When I think some more about it, I ask myself, what is the advantage of using hydra:title over rdfs:label? Since the hydra:SupportedProperty is under my control, I could as well use rdfs:label on it.

But probably hydra:title is used in other places, where that might not be true, so it is consistent to always use hydra:title within an ApiDescription, I guess.

It's consistency and to avoid tedious discussions about whether it is better to use rdfs:comment or dc:description in a specific context. A Hydra client will prefer the Hydra properties. Period. Everything else is of course allowed but they are preferred by such clients.

lanthaler commented 10 years ago

PROPOSAL: This can be achieved by adding a hydra:title (and perhaps hydra:description) to SupportedProperty. Nothing needs to be added to the vocabulary but we should add an example and an explanation thereof to the specification.