RE: Proposed resolution for ISSUE-64 (status codes)

On 1 Aug 2014 at 09:59, Ruben Verborgh wrote:
> Dear all,
> 
> I personally strongly agree with Markus'
>> s/Remove all MUSTs about/Remove all normative statements about/ and I
>> find There was no error, neither on the client nor the server side.
> 
> very convincing.
> 
> That said, I would like to move forward as follows.
> 
> The current specification for triple pattern fragments has:
> - Section 3. A large normative part on what triple pattern fragments look
like;
> - Section 4. A small normative part on what HTTP servers of those
fragments look like.
> 
> Given that the part on HTTP servers mostly consists of the status codes
discussion
> (the remainder is variable expansion, which will move to the Core
Vocabulary),
> this would allow us to reduce Section 4 to something very small and
non-normative.
> 
> In other words, triple pattern fragments would be determined entirely by
the documents,
> not any other interface agreements, which nicely agrees with the statement
that
> "A REST API should spend almost all of its descriptive effort in defining
> the media type(s) used for representing resources and driving application
state" [1].
> 
> Additionally, this would easily enable the deployment in non-HTTP
environments,
> because the spec would essentially be protocol-independent
> (even though we would thoroughly explain how one can do it for HTTP).
> 
> This would then also be a great example of the power of hypermedia
> and a generic document type as enabled by the Hydra Core Vocabulary:
> no URLs, no protocol, just the document type.
> 
> Please let us know any comments, agreements, and/or disagreements.

Sounds like a plan (I like) :-)


--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler

Received on Friday, 1 August 2014 10:49:55 UTC