Re: removing hydra:search

On 02/12/2014 11:19 PM, Ruben Verborgh wrote:
> (Changed subject for clarity.)
>
>> Slightly offensive question:
>> We are about to drop `hydra:CreateResourceOperation` and the like
>> (I don't repeat the pros/ cons here).
>> Isn't it inconsequent to keep hydra:search then?!
>> For me the same arguments for removing the aovementioned
>> operations apply equally to search or do I miss something?
> I see Hydra as the equivalent of HTML forms and as an evolved version of RDF Forms.
> An HTML search form has fields that allow humans to search a collection.
> hydra:search gives the same affordance to a machine client.

I see hydra as a way to define affordances and yes HTML forms are the 
analogy.
I cannot, however, follow it in the case of search as described.
There is no concept of a search form in HTML (especially not in 
association with a collection).
There is an input type search (at least since HTM5) but this is 
something completely different
as it doesn't allow a user agent to infer what is actually searched in.

The reason why some people seem to agree (that's at least the feeling I 
have) that we
should remove these operations is their weak semantics. I examplify:
With `CreateResourceOperation` you could model an operation to accept an 
RSVP invitation
by posting a data structure to a resource.
If you use a dedicated operation from a different vocab such as schema.org's
`https://schema.org/AcceptAction`, you can offer the client an affordance
which is semantically richer.
The question is whether we want to try to forsee which afforances will 
be ever be required
and fail or whether we want to leave room for an evolution of 
operations/ actions.
I think the variety of real-life requirements for operations is too high,
including for search, so that we should define operations in or outside 
hydra merely
as inspirational examples.

Removal of these operations is tracked in [#11] btw.

>
> Why would we want to drop something essential as that?
> (So yes, I think you do need to apply the pros/cons to hydra:search to discuss.)

see above.

>
> Best,
>
> Ruben
>
> PS I haven't joined the discussion on Operations
> because the arguments were to RESTy and technical.
> I think in itself, being able to explain the effect of an action
> on a _specific_ resource—which HTTP doesn't—is crucial.

[#11] https://github.com/HydraCG/Specifications/issues/11

Received on Friday, 14 February 2014 09:34:07 UTC