W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-hydra@w3.org > April 2016

Re: Extend describing operations

From: Tomasz Pluskiewicz <tomasz@t-code.pl>
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2016 07:29:13 +0000
Message-ID: <d4c2ebdbaf6b6979bb3272bf96772d7e@rainloop.t-code.pl>
To: "Markus Lanthaler" <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>, "Hydra" <public-hydra@w3.org>
Hi guys,

> No, I didn't. Sorry. What I actually meant was https://schema.org/potentialAction
>>> An action performed by a direct agent and indirect participants upon a
>>> direct object.

Hm, isn't the schema:Action intended for describing real physical actions? Such as in the example on docs page?

>>>> I'm feeling kind of like the "/blog/published" resource should be a link
>>>> with it's own operation. I'm still not sure how what to do about the
>>>> predefined "body".
>>> The simplest approach would be to add a "status" property to the blog
>>> post.
>> Yes, and then PATCH it? Or expose it as a resource and PUT on it. Agree?
> Either is fine. I think for most resources, requiring the client to replace the resource, i.e.,
> sending all other properties as well, would be fine too.

Yes of course, but doesn't approach reduce the API to a CRUD. Want to publish the BlogPost? Change the status property and PUT/PATCH the resource or PUT the status resource.

I expect a more rich experience possible where we actually transfer these representations between components. I this case it is transferring the BlogPost to a collection of published items.

The LINK/UNLINK does look interesting but again we'd need Link header specification on hydra:Operations.
Received on Thursday, 7 April 2016 07:30:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 7 April 2016 07:30:32 UTC