Closed lanthaler closed 5 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]
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.
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.
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.
_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?