- From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
- Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2014 17:40:08 +0100
- To: <public-hydra@w3.org>
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