- From: Kévin Dunglas via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2017 10:04:39 +0000
- To: public-hydra-logs@w3.org
> It would be bad practice if every vocabulary reinvented existing concepts over and over. Schema.org imported types and properties from a lot of pre-existing vocabularies, and it's actually a success. It's an easy to understand, standalone vocabulary to describe basic data sets. Doing the same thing for Hydra (having a standalone vocab to describe or consume a basic API) would ease the adoption. My point is not to reinvent everything - having the ability to mix Hydra with other vocabularies is one of the strength of using JSON-LD - but to have to refer to only one spec for to describe or consume basic APIs (I mean something like feature-parity with Swagger). A well crafted JSON-LD context along with a good documentation may definitely help ; but it doesn't address the full concern and at the perceived complexity problem. -- GitHub Notification of comment by dunglas Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/HydraCG/Specifications/issues/126#issuecomment-312482064 using your GitHub account
Received on Sunday, 2 July 2017 10:04:46 UTC