- From: Martijn Faassen <faassen@startifact.com>
- Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 12:27:46 +0200
- To: Ruben Verborgh <ruben.verborgh@ugent.be>
- Cc: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>, public-hydra@w3.org
Hey, On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 11:45 PM, Ruben Verborgh <ruben.verborgh@ugent.be> wrote: > “ > they perceive it as being too complex. > For the time being, we use HAL with lots of 'assumptions' […]. > Not ideal I think, but well…” I don't want to use HAL either; I have the impression the JSON-LD + Hydra story is a better foundation. But while I think JSON-LD is explainable enough, I don't think the same applies to Hydra right now, and I find myself thinking "I should just go to HAL", too. But I don't think Hydra is actually more complex when you use it for the same purposes of HAL, it's just the spec doesn't hold your hands enough. I realize that the RDF-like nature of Hydra makes everything supremely flexible, but best practices and worked out examples of them is still valuable in the spec. But I'm not sure, as I don't understand the spec yet. :) Regards, Martijn
Received on Thursday, 4 September 2014 10:28:13 UTC