- From: Asbjørn Ulsberg <asbjorn@ulsberg.no>
- Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 13:52:00 +0200
- To: Ruben Verborgh <ruben.verborgh@ugent.be>
- Cc: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>, Hydra <public-hydra@w3.org>
2015-10-05 16:52 GMT+02:00 Ruben Verborgh <ruben.verborgh@ugent.be>: >> I'm not sure. Perhaps JSON-LD should be mandated. > > There's no way to mandate this. > The Hydra Core Vocabulary is a vocabulary, > not an API where we can set such constraints. Right. Good point. We can make recommendations, though? In RFC 2119 parlez, people SHOULD offer their Hydra-enabled APIs in application/ld+json. > Content negotiation is key. Yup. > Just to be clear, JSON-LD alone won't help you, > because JSON-LD files can have quite arbitrary shapes. > For instance, > $ curl -H "Accept: application/ld+json" http://fragments.dbpedia.org/2015/en > does give you JSON-LD, but not (yet) the kind you want I guess. I'm not sure how else the above can look and still be JSON-LD compatible? I think it looks reasonable enough, given what data it actually contains. > Framing would be needed here. Elaborate, please. :) -- Asbjørn Ulsberg -=|=- asbjorn@ulsberg.no «He's a loathsome offensive brute, yet I can't look away»
Received on Tuesday, 6 October 2015 11:52:27 UTC