- From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
- Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 22:07:45 +0100
- To: <public-hydra@w3.org>
- Cc: "'Thomas Hoppe'" <thomas.hoppe@n-fuse.de>
On Thursday, February 20, 2014 8:13 PM, Thomas Hoppe wrote: > On 02/19/2014 11:16 AM, Ruben Verborgh wrote: > Your second mail: > > > t's still not quite comprehensible > > to keep search but drop basic CRUD operations > > > I'd say: precisely because search is_not_ a basic operation. > > > > Well but then I have to ask why we remove basic stuff like CRUD > opertions and keep complex stuff like search... this is somewhat > inconsistent to me. I do think CRUD functionality is quite important for a lot of APIs. Over the last months, however, it became clear that they confused a lot of people. I would thus be very open to create a separate Hydra CRUD vocabulary defining those operations with strictly CRUD apps in mind. If we look at collections from that point of view, strictly speaking Collections wouldn't belong to the core vocabulary either. The thing is though that they are so common in almost all Web APIs that it does make sense to include them directly in the core vocab... and as soon you have collections, people will ask for search. Now we could move all of this into a Hydra collection vocabulary but I think that would go too far. > > It's not covered by the HTTP spec, > > so if machines want to use it, it needs to be described. > > Yea but as we found out in discussions about the CRUD operations > things are more complex than they seem and and thus also need to be > described. > I'm curious how we will end up with this. > > To whom it may concern: I will be one week on vacation from now. I hope you had some nice holidays. Cheers, Markus -- Markus Lanthaler @markuslanthaler
Received on Friday, 28 February 2014 21:08:24 UTC