Re: Hydra: similarities and differences

Hey Martynas,

> The similiarity of Graphity with both Hydra and the LDP is the concept
> of resources and collections/containers, which is common to many
> LDP-like systems.

…at some point, we really need to start reusing things in the SemWeb :-)

That said, the Hydra Core Vocabulary is not exactly an LDP-like system.

> Also similarly to Hydra, we use URI templates extensively

Mmm yeah, but "use" and "use" is two.
The Hydra Core Vocabulary uses them as in-band hypermedia controls.

> to match request URIs

What are the use cases in which this is needed?

> we do not attempt to specify allowed operations, as we feel
> this is covered by HTTP and by optional access control rules [1].

It's not; the Core Vocabulary is about what the resource supports,
not about what people are or aren't allowed to do.

> You are right, there are predefined rules in the specification, about
> how the processor should behave based on the application description.
> The description itself is however fully declarative, RDF-based

Yes, but is it a pre-defined contract that clients have to know,
or something they can discover?

> I hope this clears some things. We can bounce some emails back and
> forth to identify the overlaps more clearly.

I'm actually more curious about the differences ;-)
The other thread [1] has some interesting discussion topics in there!

Best,

Ruben

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-declarative-apps/2014Jun/0003.html

Received on Saturday, 21 June 2014 12:48:17 UTC