Re: Why the collection?

Hi guys,
I am pretty new to API design and HYDRA, but I have some experience with
standard ontology systems. I agree with Jacopo and Tomasz about avoiding a
detailed enough implementation to make the "meaning" of a collection in
HYDRA too far from the general notion of collection already used by SKOS[1]
for example.
What are the critical points about this approach? What kind of particular
needs a description of an API resource's involves?
Is there any particular problem in making hydra:Collection a blank node
instead of a subclass of hydra:Resource as for skos:Collection or
skos:ConceptScheme?
Thanks to all for carrying on this activity, it is really interesting to
follow the evolution of a standard-to-be.
Regards


[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/#collections

2015-03-06 19:48 GMT+01:00 Tomasz Pluskiewicz <tomasz@t-code.pl>:

> Hi Jacopo
>
> These is exactly what I have been trying to say some time last month. I
> think that we are going into specific design of a collection. My point was
> similar, that any kind of collection (or partial view) could be modeled
> with simple building blocks like Operations and Links. Any specialized
> terms sometimes seem a little out of place in a general-purpose hypermedia
> vocabulary I think Hydra is.
>
> On the other hand non-linked hypermedia approaches all sport some notion
> of a collection, though I would very much draw any conclusion from that
> simple fact.
>
> Thanks,
> Tom
>
>
> On 2015-03-06 12:32, Jacopo Scazzosi wrote:
>
>> Hello Thomas.
>>
>> Thanks for the clarification. Isn't playing with lego exactly what we
>> are all doing with RDF vocabularies and ontologies, though?
>>
>> In my learning process I've already encountered quite a few of them
>> (skos, rdf(s), hydra, foaf, xlmns, owl, schema, ...). It already feels
>> like
>> "playing lego" (just as picking and assembling the right components
>> for an API's underlying architecture does).
>>
>> Also, if the goal is to "describe Web APIs" from a practical,
>> what-can-you-do-with-this point of view, then wouldn't Hydra benefit
>> from the separation of concerns obtained by delegating the semantics of
>> collections to dedicated vocabs?
>>
>> I'm absolutely no expert but collections seem to be so context-specific
>> that even you guys are experiencing some difficulties in finding a common
>> ground - hence my considerations.
>>
>> Cheers.
>>
>>
>
>


-- 
¤ acM ¤
Lorenzo
Moriondo
http://www.moloco.it
@lorenzogotuned
http://careers.stackoverflow.com/lorenzomoriondo
https://www.linkedin.com/pub/lorenzo-moriondo/a3/47/b0a