- From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 14:36:17 +0100
- To: Bernadette Farias Lóscio <bfl@cin.ufpe.br>, Annette Greiner <amgreiner@lbl.gov>, "public-dwbp-wg@w3.org" <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
- Cc: Newton Calegari <newton@nic.br>
Can I just ask why this example is presented in a separate document? It seems to me that it would fit within the primary document readily enough, no? Phil On 15/05/2016 15:24, Bernadette Farias Lóscio wrote: > Hi Annette, > > Thanks again for your feedback! > > I made some more changes on the API documentation and I think now it's ok > [1]! > > Cheers, > Berna > > [1] http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/dwbp-api-example.html > > > > 2016-05-13 17:59 GMT-03:00 Annette Greiner <amgreiner@lbl.gov>: > >> Seeing URIs in there, and separate IDs, I thought your were trying to do a >> hypermedia API thing and offer links, but I guess now you are just >> suggesting them as ids. If you just want to use URIs as identifiers, we say >> in BP11 to define locally unique identifiers and allow them to be converted >> to the globally unique, long URIs. But I'm not sure bus stops are a good >> example of BP11. They can be pretty changeable. In any case, I wouldn't >> write an API call that returns primarily non-URL URIs. If we fleshed out >> the routes result so that it's more complete, like the stops result, it >> would help. The real-time result uses /id in URIs labeled as "route". I >> think the route number alone would be correct there. >> >> I think the URIs for 24 and 26 are okay. >> >> http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#APIHttpVerbs doesn't seem to be >> pointing where you want it to point. >> -Annette >> >> >> On 5/13/16 7:46 AM, Bernadette Farias Lóscio wrote: >> >> Hi Annette, >> >> thanks a lot for the fast response! We're gonna fix the html page based on >> your comments. >> >> I have just one comment about: "4. In the responses, any URIs should be >> real URLs. They should never have “/id” in them. I think the route values >> should just be a route id number, {“route”: 5}. Giving a URI for a thing >> here is not friendly to developers." >> >> We included the /id because of the example given at BP11 [1]. In this >> case, can we keep the /id? >> >> I think it's possible to improve the API documentation for the next >> publication. I'm gonna discuss this with Newton and we're gonna let you >> know about our progress. >> >> I sent you another message asking your feedback on the URIs used in BP >> 24[1] and BP 26[2]. We rewrote the URIs to follow the same pattern used in >> the API documentation, but we are not sure if this is correct. If you >> prefer we can use the original ones. >> >> Cheers, >> Berna >> >> [1] http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#identifiersWithinDatasets >> >> [1] http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#APIHttpVerbs >> [2]http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#avoidBreakingChangesAPI >> 11:31 (Há 15 minutos) >> >> >> 2016-05-13 11:31 GMT-03:00 Annette Greiner <amgreiner@lbl.gov>: >> >>> Hi Bernadette, >>> The example documentation is looking nice! I like the format, though it >>> could give more detail. >>> >>> I really wish this used Swagger, because that’s such a great example. >>> Take a look at http://petstore.swagger.io/#!/pet/addPet and click on one >>> of the calls to expand it. You’ll see what I’m talking about. They have a >>> nice table that lists parameters and lets you test options right in the web >>> page. If we can’t use Swagger itself, could we emulate it more closely? I >>> think some in-page javascript is all we would need. That would probably be >>> too much to set up for this version of the BP doc, but I think we could add >>> it for the next one. >>> >>> I noticed some small errors, detailed below. >>> >>> 1. The first call, “List all bus routes" has a space for an example, but >>> there isn’t an example in there. I think you could just remove the heading. >>> >>> 2. In the call to list all bus stops, the example doesn’t match. I think >>> you have the beginnings of one call with the example and results from >>> another. You don’t need an example for the listing of all bus stops, but >>> you should show the response. >>> >>> The call for all the stops on a specific bus route should be like this: >>> >>> List all bus stops along a single route >>> GET http://data.mycity.example.com/transport/api/bus/stops/route/{id} >>> Example >>> http://data.mycity.example.com/transport/api/bus/stops/route/5 >>> >>> The result should return the same fields for each stop. Right now it >>> returns three completely different objects. >>> >>> 3. The example for "Get real-time info for bus stop” doesn’t match the >>> call. It should be >>> http://data.mycity.example.com/transport/api/bus/stops/realtime/345 >>> >>> 4. In the responses, any URIs should be real URLs. They should never have >>> “/id” in them. I think the route values should just be a route id number, >>> {“route”: 5}. Giving a URI for a thing here is not friendly to developers. >>> >>> -Annette >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Bernadette Farias Lóscio >> Centro de Informática >> Universidade Federal de Pernambuco - UFPE, Brazil >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> -- >> Annette Greiner >> NERSC Data and Analytics Services >> Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory >> >> >> > > -- Phil Archer W3C Data Activity Lead http://www.w3.org/2013/data/ http://philarcher.org +44 (0)7887 767755 @philarcher1
Received on Monday, 16 May 2016 13:36:47 UTC