Re: Let's get started

On Friday, June 28, 2013 at 12:45 PM, Markus Lanthaler wrote:
> On Friday, June 28, 2013 1:00 AM, Ioseb Dzmanashvili wrote:
> > What i expect from this group:
> >  
> > - Due to my minimal knowledge in the field of linked data i hope to
> > learn something new
> >  
>  
>  
>  
> We are a quite heterogeneous group from what I can tell. So I'm sure we all can learn a lot from each other.
>  
I agree.
  
> It could also be the current version of the spec assumes too much Linked Data knowledge. Maybe that's one of the first things we could try to address (if needed)!? Willing to do a quick review and see if something assumes too much?
>  
I do not think something assumes too much, its just new for me. In my opinion format itself is quite clean and minimalistic.

> > > - data validation (declarative description of the criteria for valid
> > data,
> > > can be used to generate client-side and server-side validation code)
> >  
> >  
> >  
> > +1 except code generation.
>  
> I'm myself still very much on the fence about data validation. Hydra currently only tells whether a property is required or not.
>  
> Just to clarify it, by "to generate client-side and server-side validation code" I didn't mean code generation in the classic sense but to be able to write a generic validator that knows how to interpret descriptions in order to validate specific properties etc.
>  
This sounds reasonable. I'm not sure how these feet in linked data philosophy, but three approaches come to mind:

1. Use regexs to specify validation rules, but i do not think its reasonable as far as there are several non compatible regex processing engines and it is not practical to specify which engine needs to be used to process regexs;
2. Use specific types in property descriptions i.e. number, string, email, URI etc… in this case some types can be described with ABNF or existing RFCs indicated directly(later creates direct dependencies to other specs though); and
3. Use property type registry and use URIs to specify property type, this way validation rules will be deferred to type description spec.

>  
> > > - "single-click actions", i.e., operations which do not require any
> > > use input, such as a "like". Typically, I consider such things an
> > > anti-pattern in terms of a RESTful architecture but sometimes they
> > > are really handy
> > >  
> >  
> >  
> >  
> > +1 even though i was highly criticised on other mailing list for my
> > attempt to "standardise" single-click actions[1] i'm still interested
> > in this topic and hope to find non anti-pattern ways to use this
> > concept .
> >  
>  
>  
>  
> I know, I was one of them :-) Let's see if we can come up with something we are equally (un)happy together.
I'm looking forward to try :-)  

Cheers,
ioseb
>  
> Great to have you on board Ioseb.
>  
>  
>  
> --
> Markus Lanthaler
> @markuslanthaler
>

Received on Friday, 28 June 2013 15:35:09 UTC