Re: the necessity of describing responses in-band

On 6 October 2015 at 14:17, Ruben Verborgh <ruben.verborgh@ugent.be> wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> I've written a blog post that describes the necessity
> of describing responses in-band:
>     http://ruben.verborgh.org/blog/2015/10/06/turtles-all-the-way-down/
>
> More than an argument for REST/hypermedia,
> it's an explanation of _how_ we should realize that
> with RDF-enabled representations.
>
> In this context, the Hydra Core Vocabulary is a major enabler,
> because it lets us describe hypermedia controls in RDF.
>

Thanks for sharing.  One point is that putting triples in a document doesnt
help you if you're doing a HEAD request.

I think it's not unusual to see

<> predicate object

isnt it?  For example the personalProfileDocument pattern.  For meta data
about a document.

It seems to be a common point of debate as to whether to mandate meta data
in a document or in a header (or both or either!).

Is there a clear understanding of when to put data in one or the other, or
is it simply preference?

One thing we do in rdflib.js is create a graph of all header responses for
every document fetched and put it in a knowledge base.  Then later we can
check both data points, do you think this is a good idea?

The idea of pagination is interesting, because could be viewed at the HTTP
level or at the generic document level, so I can see why opinion may be
split.


>
> Best,
>
> Ruben
>
>