W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-hydra@w3.org > January 2015

Re: remove hydra:Resource and hydra:Class

From: Tomasz Pluskiewicz <tomasz@t-code.pl>
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2015 21:26:16 +0100
Message-ID: <54B42DE8.8020307@t-code.pl>
To: public-hydra@w3.org

On 2015-01-12 20:33, Ruben Verborgh wrote:
> Hi Dietrich,
>> Markus told me to use hydra:Resource to mark a Link as dereferenceable in-place (embedded, without dereferencing the ApiDocumentation).
> I don't think that's really necessary.
>> On the other hand, I found that one could also make it explicit that a link is meant to be dereferenced by defining a GET operation on it.
> “Meant to be referenced” is strange. As a server, you cannot know what your client wants to do.
> I prefer the implicit contract. If it's an HTTP(s) URL, it should be implicit you can dereference.
> And it never hurts to try.
>> Since neither hydra nor schema.org define something like a :DereferenceOperation: what about defining one
> ReadResourceOperation was discussed in the past, but was not deemed necessary,
> more or less for the same reason (if I recall correctly): just GET it.

It's logical. Pretty much what I meant in my reply to John [1]. However 
the reason for hydra:Class as described in the specification is the 
without guidance the client would have to blindly try dereferencing 
everything. The alternative to add a GET operation seems fine to me. A 
client has one implicit and one explicit way.

If we add hydra:Link and what Dietrich mentioned about hydra:Resource, 
I'm starting to get the impression that there are too many way to 
achieve the same goal. I'd find that confusing.

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-hydra/2015Jan/0117.html
Received on Monday, 12 January 2015 20:26:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 12 January 2015 20:26:52 UTC