search

HydraCG / Specifications

Specifications created by the Hydra W3C Community Group
Other
138 stars 26 forks source link

add section about manages block #195

Closed tpluscode closed 5 years ago

tpluscode commented 5 years ago

Summary

I added the "manages" to the spec, finally 🎉

More details

We can close #41 which is directly related to this proposal and has already been "resolved". For same reason we should close #126.

Fixes #194 as it aims to clarify the semantics and usage

I would like to close #150 and close #60 - the name "manages block" may should a little alien but I feel like it's a Hydra-specific enough construct to let it be justified. It's been around long enough too that it settled IMO.

Related cookbook PR

Previously partially addressed as #132

angelo-v commented 5 years ago

Thanks for clarifying that in the spec. It took me quite a while to figure it out myself when starting with hydra!

tpluscode commented 5 years ago

Haha, took me even longer 😬

tpluscode commented 5 years ago

Thank you @alien-mcl @vddesai1871, I applied your suggestions

asbjornu commented 5 years ago

I’m still not content with the word manages. A collection does not “manage” anything, since it’s not a “manager”. A collection “contains”, “holds”, “consists of”, “comprises of” or “encloses” items.

tpluscode commented 5 years ago

A collection “contains”, “holds”, “consists of”, “comprises of” or “encloses” items.

The manages block is about neither of the relation that you give as example. Instead it's a way to indirectly make statements about the members.

If you have some suggestion I propose that you reopen #60. That issue is fairly pristine so we could revisit this decision.

alien-mcl commented 5 years ago

A collection “contains”, “holds”, “consists of”, “comprises of” or “encloses” items.

But a resource you access that collection through actually does manage that collection. We're not talking about a collection, but it's physical representation through an API.

But I agree with @tpluscode - feel free to reopen #60

asbjornu commented 5 years ago

Neither #60 nor #150 can be reopened, even though I've created the latter. I suppose it might be due to them being resolved by a merge commit and not explicitly closed. I can open a new issue unless you're able to reopen any of the existing issues related to this.