W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-hydra@w3.org > November 2013

RE: representing hypermedia controls in RDF

From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 15:28:50 +0100
To: <public-hydra@w3.org>
Message-ID: <02ff01cee78f$2a5360d0$7efa2270$@lanthaler@gmx.net>
On Friday, November 22, 2013 11:04 AM, Ruben Verborgh wrote:
> [-public-lod]
> 
> >> PUT should also be usable without any required parameterization,
> >
> > Not so convinced about that..
> 
> I think Mark's right. Further parameterization should not be on the
> request.
> I guess the main type of parameterization you need is about what can be
> submitted?

Right


> That belongs to the media type. Describe the media type and PUT will be
> fully defined.

Of course you could mint media types for that but I don't think that's
practical. Either you create distinct media types for each type which
results in the often criticized proliferation of media types or you don't,
in which case you still need some other mechanism to define what type of
entity you are expecting.

That's basically what Hydra does. It separates the serialization format
(media type) from the semantics of the data. That way it's simple to switch
serialization type. Nothing e.g. prevents you from creating Hydra-powered
Web APIs using HTML+RDFa, Turtle, or if you really *really* want RDF/XML...
no, better you forget RDF/XML :-P


--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler
Received on Friday, 22 November 2013 14:29:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:29:40 UTC