W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-hydra@w3.org > July 2014

Re: Call for consensus on defining IRI template expansion (ISSUE-30)

From: Ryan Riley <ryan.riley@panesofglass.org>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 09:00:00 -0500
Message-ID: <BLU436-SMTP236CB359E70A28C2197BFE4E5FF0@phx.gbl>
To: public-hydra@w3.org
On Jul 23, 2014, at 2:02 AM, Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net> wrote:
>>> IMO there are two classes of applications that we have to consider
>>> here: RDF-based applications (triple store on the server side etc.)
>>> and non-RDF-based (mostly applications that work in the realm of
>>> JSON-LD instead of RDF). Is there anything in between which we need
>>> to handle?
>> 
>> I think that, as a prerequisite, Hydra should work with existing (REST)
>> HTTP interfaces. That is, if a server has decided to encode values in a
>> certain way, the description should reflect this; i.e., the application
>> should not be updated to allow description.
> 
> While it certainly sounds like a sensible prerequisite, I think in practice
> it isn't worth the effort. I don't consider being able to describe arbitrary
> existing Web APIs with Hydra an important requirement anymore. As soon as
> you start describing requests that involve payloads, you will run into lots
> of issues that aren't worth the hassle and the required complexity to make
> them work IMO.

+1
Received on Thursday, 24 July 2014 14:00:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:29:42 UTC