- From: Annette Greiner <amgreiner@lbl.gov>
- Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 11:35:04 -0800
- To: public-dwbp-wg@w3.org
Hi Yaso, Yes, I think we have covered the needs of those who are not publishing with an API pretty well (possibly too well, but that's another discussion). I wouldn't want to include HATEOAS in the title of the BP for using an API. The BP should be about what the HATEOAS and pragmatic camps have in common. I think it's important to mention both the pragmatic REST approach and the HATEOAS approach as distinct implementation options. The current BP 21 has a lot of issues that we've been discussing improvements on for a while. I don't think what we have in the google doc is perfect, but I do think it at least addresses the issues raised. How do you feel about swapping that in and then continuing to improve it? -Annette On 11/16/15 4:19 AM, Yasodara wrote: > Hi all > > I exchanged a few ideas on this BP with Newton before he raised the > issue. Although I had written this BP, I agree that recommending RESTful > architecture may cause some confusion. The discussion on what is a > RESTful API, or what can be the ideal architecture, is beyond our scope, > imho. If we enter this issue we may have to discuss, for example, the > "maturity level" [1] proposed for rest APIs.. > > Maybe, for the sake of the document, is better reconsidering > recommending the REST (with this exactly word) in the top of the BP. > > But I would mention HATEOAS **instead**. > > I agree with Newton that "it would be interesting suggest the use of an > REST API as an approach to implementation of the BP" instead of a > recommendation." > > @annete, about mentioning other use cases that doesn't use APIs.. . I > think we already covered that. Don't we? > > > cheers, > yaso > > > http://martinfowler.com/articles/richardsonMaturityModel.html > > > > > > > On 11/16/2015 09:59 AM, Bernadette Farias Lóscio wrote: >> Hi Annette, >> >> I agree with you! I think using API is just one of the possible ways of >> publishing data on the Web. >> >> cheers, >> Bernadette >> >> 2015-11-13 20:02 GMT-03:00 Annette Greiner <amgreiner@lbl.gov>: >> >>> My reason for asking is that I think it's important to consider possible >>> use cases for doing something other than publishing an API. I realize it >>> doesn't meet your criteria for being "webby", but there are people who use >>> the web in other ways, and they may have good reason for doing so. I don't >>> want to be dismissive of them. >>> -Annette >>> >>> On 11/13/15 12:57 PM, Erik Wilde wrote: >>> >>>> On 2015-11-13 19:38, Annette Greiner wrote: >>>> >>>>> I would not recommend the use of SOAP to anyone these days. I do >>>>> recommend the use of REST principles, even in backends that are not set >>>>> up as an API per se, because they make it easy to add an API later. Is >>>>> it always a best practice to make an API available? I'm not sure. >>>>> >>>> well, if it's "data on the web" i'd assume at the very least there is >>>> some remote access in the overall picture, right? if that;s the case, then >>>> it can either be the FTP/SOAP-style "let's serve some files via whatever >>>> transport channel we have", in which case i'm not sure why the title even >>>> mentions the web, or it could be a way of doing this webby, in which case >>>> your data model is your API, essentially. >>>> >>>> cheers, >>>> >>>> dret. >>>> >>>> >>> -- >>> Annette Greiner >>> NERSC Data and Analytics Services >>> Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory >>> >>> >>> >> -- Annette Greiner NERSC Data and Analytics Services Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
Received on Monday, 16 November 2015 19:35:45 UTC