- From: Ryan Riley <ryan.riley@panesofglass.org>
- Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 09:00:00 -0500
- To: public-hydra@w3.org
On Jul 23, 2014, at 2:02 AM, Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net> wrote: >>> IMO there are two classes of applications that we have to consider >>> here: RDF-based applications (triple store on the server side etc.) >>> and non-RDF-based (mostly applications that work in the realm of >>> JSON-LD instead of RDF). Is there anything in between which we need >>> to handle? >> >> I think that, as a prerequisite, Hydra should work with existing (REST) >> HTTP interfaces. That is, if a server has decided to encode values in a >> certain way, the description should reflect this; i.e., the application >> should not be updated to allow description. > > While it certainly sounds like a sensible prerequisite, I think in practice > it isn't worth the effort. I don't consider being able to describe arbitrary > existing Web APIs with Hydra an important requirement anymore. As soon as > you start describing requests that involve payloads, you will run into lots > of issues that aren't worth the hassle and the required complexity to make > them work IMO. +1
Received on Thursday, 24 July 2014 14:00:37 UTC