- From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
- Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 23:48:58 +0200
- To: <public-hydra@w3.org>
On 10 Jul 2014 at 14:43, Tomasz Pluskiewicz wrote: > On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 2:18 PM, Markus Lanthaler wrote: >> On 10 Jul 2014 at 09:45, Tomasz Pluskiewicz wrote: >>> Unlike next/prev page, which Hydra defines out of the box, there >>> probably won't be a goToSpecificPage property, because it requires the >>> use of a IriTemplate. >> >> Why is that bad? The "search" property also requires a IriTemplate. >> What we need to discuss is whether this feature is "popular enough" to >> be included in the core vocabulary. >> > > I mean that in itself this property is incomplete. For real-world use > you need to create a subproperty and define an actual template and Why do you need to create a subproperty. Let's assume we introduce two new properties: pageTemplate and pageNumber. This allows a client to construct direct links to specific pages of a collection without any additional knowledge. > mappings, right? And they will be specific to that on use case. But on I think such a feature would be quite generic. The question is whether jumping to a specific page is required by enough applications to justify the inclusion of this feature directly into Hydra. > second though I see that such base template proeprties for common > relations do have their place. > > I think the question is how much benefit is there for the client? What Exactly. That's the key question. > will the client gain knowing that a given property, say > soccerApi:search, is subproperty of hydra:search? Or the hypothetical > hydra:goToSpecificPage? By knowing that it is a subproperty, it can try to fall back to Hydra if it doesn't understand that soccerApi vocabulary. I think the question should rather be why you want to introduce a subproperty. -- Markus Lanthaler @markuslanthaler
Received on Thursday, 10 July 2014 21:49:43 UTC