RE: StatusCodeDescription vs. Status (ISSUE-32)

On Monday, March 03, 2014 5:20 PM, Ruben Verborgh wrote:
> > Just to make sure we are on the same: "returns" would be wrapped in a
> > "Status" and not be directly on the operation, right?
> 
> Yes, definitely!
> 
> >> But doesn't really help anyway. Clients won't do anything with the
> >> description.
> >
> > That might not be entirely true as you could give that specific
> > status an identifier and then return it as is as response:
> >
> >   {
> >     "@context": "http://www.w3.org/ns/hydra/context.jsonld",
> >     "@id": "http://example.com/api/errors/180984",
> >     "@type": "Status",
> >     "title": "Too Many Requests",
> >     "description": "A maximum of 500 requests per hour and user is
> > allowed."
> >    }
> 
> I like that very much.
> So much that I would actually recommend in the spec
> that the status is given an identifier, that it's not just a blank
> node. That way, it can be annotated easily later on.

Cool! I've created ISSUE-39 to keep track of this:

  https://github.com/HydraCG/Specifications/issues/39


> >>> 5) If we describe it, does it belong in the core vocabulary?
> >>
> >> 1: could be interesting.
> >> 2: no.
> >
> > I assume you wrote this under the assumption that those 2 cases would be
> > expressed differently, right? So you have one property to describe the
> > *likely, normal result* (at the moment that would be "returns") and
another
> > one to describe additional outcomes that occur only in specific
scenarios
> > ("possibleStatus").
> 
> Yes, I guess so.

OK, so taking into consideration your response at the beginning of this
mail, I assume these descriptions should stay in the core vocabulary
according to you. Right?


Cheers,
Markus


--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler

Received on Monday, 3 March 2014 16:41:00 UTC