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

Re: Filtering collections etc. - taking a step back (ISSUE-45)

From: Ruben Verborgh <ruben.verborgh@ugent.be>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 00:07:08 +0200
Cc: Hydra <public-hydra@w3.org>
Message-Id: <4A07C58A-FB7D-435D-AA0E-33131B40207C@ugent.be>
To: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
HI Markus,

>  - a description of why a client would want to use the IRI template and

Does "why" mean what the intended result will be?

> 7         the expected response will be a CollectionView

I think something important has been forgotten:
     8 that is filtered in a so and so way
All the rest, we can already do today.

(Not saying that we should describe all possible kinds of filters,
 we're not going for a Turing-complete language here.)

> The trickiest part is definitely (6)

Ah no… 6 by itself is easy, just describing the parameters.
It's describing the effect of those parameters that's tricky (my 8).

> Or we could define a few more specialized operation types (3) that
> kind of hardcode the behavior for common use cases (example: a
> specialization of "filter" that is defined as "filter the collection by
> equality-checking the specified parameters to the corresponding properties
> of each collection member; multiple parameters are combined with AND").

That's still an easy an acceptable way out.
hydra:filter as it was originally intended.

We should just make it possible
to create extensions (not core) that
allow to define predicates like hydra:filter.


Received on Monday, 11 April 2016 22:07:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 11 April 2016 22:07:29 UTC