Re: [Specifications] Should we introduce a property to associate operations and their target directly to an entity?

In general agree with adding `target`. I've been thinking about 
something similar which I would use internally to uniformly represent 
operations.

I would model it so that any operation without an explicit target 
assumed the parent resource as one. So

``` json
{
  "@id": "http://example.com/resource"
  "operations": {
    // details
  }
}
```

was equivalent to 

``` json
{
  "@id": "http://example.com/resource"
  "operations": {
    "target": "http://example.com/resource"
    // details
  }
}
```

Is that aligned with your idea?

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by tpluscode
Please view or discuss this issue at 
https://github.com/HydraCG/Specifications/issues/3#issuecomment-268793285
 using your GitHub account

Received on Thursday, 22 December 2016 12:50:44 UTC