RE: Some Thoughts on Hydra Core

On Thursday, October 03, 2013 2:13 PM, Thomas Hoppe wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I make an aggregated response here:
> If the defined operations have, as you say, hardly a binding character
> and
> every API provider is encouraged to define his own, specific operations
> then I would agree to not having any operation on the spec or clearly
> marking them as examples.

If everyone defines their own specific operations, that wouldn't help much.
What I envision is that "standardized" operations are defined for common
application domains.. think ecommerce, microbloggging, etc.


> I still recommend however to resolve the CRUD wording issue.

Again, if you could propose some concrete wording, that would help
immensely.


> Regarding the use case for a ReadResourceOperation, there is an obvious
> one:
> If you want to specify the returned data structures with the
> corresponding attributes for read operations in the API documentation,
> you need this operation to specify this.

Can't you use rdfs:range for that? It tells you of what type the resource
referenced by a link is. So if

  myproperty rdfs:range MyClass .

then, when I see a statement like

  /entity1 myproperty /entity2

I can infer that /entity2 is an instance of MyClass.


> The sentence could read:
> "Hydra is not limited to public APIs but can also be used on concert
> with an arbitrary
> authentication solution. In hydra, the operations offered by a resource
> can be embedded in the representation
> which allows to specify authentication constraints implicitly on a per
> request basis."

What about changing this slightly to (given that it will be put in the core
spec):

   Even aspects such as authorization and authentication are beyond the
scope
   of this specification, it is worth noting that the operations and links
   offered by a resource can vary per client (sorry, I don't find a better
word
   at the moment). An anonymous client might only get a subset of the links
and
   operations served to a fully authenticated client.

What do you think?


--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler

Received on Thursday, 3 October 2013 20:40:29 UTC