Hydra Status

Hiya,

I'm primarily interested in using Hydra for an API that deals with underlying IIIF (http://iiif.io) entities that are natively represented in JSON-LD. The IIIF standard uses JSON-LD and does not assume that the data is a serialisation of RDF. I think this is because many developers are used to dealing with JSON and will be unfamiliar with RDF, so the decision was taken to be JSON-LD-first for the IIIF formats in order to encourage take-up. I personally have little interest in RDF and am happy to use JSON-LD at face value in Hydra, an advantage being that it has zero dissonance with the representation that IIIF uses.

Although I can see how a knowledge of RDF is useful for designing certain parts of the framework, I think that emphasising RDF throughout would turn many developers away - many would instead probably use something like Swagger since it is A) fashionable and B) has no weight of expectation of the underlying model. For example, being able to consume and use a Hydra API from a piece of JavaScript that doesn't have to know anything about graphs or RDF is a virtue from my point of view.

Adam.


-----Original Message-----
From: Markus Lanthaler [mailto:markus.lanthaler@gmx.net]
Sent: 16 November 2016 20:13
To: 'Hydra' <public-hydra@w3.org>
Subject: RE: Hydra Status

On 15 Nov 2016 at 23:28, Graham Conzett wrote:
> After this discussion I'm even less clear on who the intended audience
> is for Hydra is. Only people who are primarily focused on RDF?

We want to build something which is usable by everyone.. also people without RDF background. But people working on the design of Hydra itself need to be familiar with (or willing to learn the basics of) RDF and other technologies Hydra is based on. Otherwise experience has shown that constructive discussions are very difficult.

This doesn't mean people without background in those technologies and without time to learn them can't participate. We will need input, use cases, feedback etc. People without RDF background are crucial to ensure we built something approachable to everyone and eventually document it in an accessible manner.

Thoughts? Opinions? Objections anyone?


--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler




> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 4:19 PM, Ruben Verborgh <Ruben.Verborgh@ugent.be> wrote:
>>> What I think we are sorely missing at the moment, is a group of
>>> *dedicated and
> committed* core contributors that push the development of Hydra forward.
>>
>> Count me in!
>>
>> Also, we'll need a clear driving force IMHO, a committee of 1–3
>> people coordinating everything.
>>
>>> We can also revisit Hydra's overall architecture but I'm a bit
>>> skeptical about such an
> effort if we can't reach consensus on something as fundamental as collections.
>>
>> That is precisely why we should revisit it.
>>
>> Ruben



________________________________

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This private and confidential e-mail has been sent to you by Digirati Limited. This is a UK limited company, registration number SC235053 The information in this e-mail (which includes any files transmitted with it) is confidential and may also be legally privileged. It is intended for the addressee only. Access to this e-mail by anyone else is unauthorized. It is not to be relied upon by any person other than the addressee except with our prior written approval. If no such approval is given, we will not accept any liability (in negligence or otherwise) arising from any third party acting, or refraining from acting, on such information. Unauthorized recipients are required to maintain confidentiality. If you have received this e-mail in error please notify the originator immediately, destroy any copies and delete it from your computer system. The unauthorized use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this e-mail is prohibited.

Thank you.

Digirati Limited, Unit G 4, The Hub, 70 Pacific Quay, Glasgow G51 1EA | Dunstan House, 14A St Cross St London, EC1N 8XA
Telephone +44 (0)845 643 4370: website: www.digirati.com
<>

Received on Thursday, 17 November 2016 12:30:16 UTC