Re: Replace hydra:Error with application/problem+json

Hi, Erik and thanks for your valuable contribution to this discussion. Very
much appreciated!
2015-09-26 18:25 GMT+02:00 Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu>:
>
> (3) in the same way as the I-D currently has a section on how to serialize
> application/problem+json in XML, there could be another one about RDF. this
> would simply mean that the approach taken in (2) would become an integral
> part of the spec, instead of being standalone. however, my feeling is that
> this might slow down the progression of the draft, and i think that mark is
> in favor of keeping these things separate, instead of integrating them (am
> i reading your mind correctly, mark?).
>

I completely understand this concern. But, I think that since this draft
was started, the world has changed, namely; JSON-LD has become a W3C
Recommendation. As with a lot of standards from that origin (like
everything SOAP-related), not every standard is something we necessarily
need to acknowledge and take into consideration, I do feel that JSON-LD is
so important and at the same time so low-cost to implement that the
arguments against considering it should be extremely well versed.

Since problem+json is still in a draft status, there is room and
possibility to reconsider the design and adjust the current syntax so it
matches something that would be JSON-LD compliant. For problem+json it
wouldn't mean much, syntax wise; it would mostly be a political statement
in embracing JSON-LD. If someone involved with the draft is deeply opposed
to JSON-LD, that is of course an important aspect that might be out of
scope for this discussion, but if that's not the case, I'd love to see the
options discussed and concluded one way or another.


> regardless of the chosen approach, in think it would be great to see
> adoption of application/problem+json outside of JSON-centric approaches
> (that was my motivation to work on an XML model), but it might take a bit
> of work to figure out how to best reflect the JSON model into RDF. as with
> XML, the biggest issue is the extension/openness part, which tends to not
> map very well between different metamodel worlds.
>

Yes, I agree. Let's see how mister Nottingham feels about the matter.

-- 
Asbjørn Ulsberg           -=|=-        asbjorn@ulsberg.no
«He's a loathsome offensive brute, yet I can't look away»