RE: Core Vocabulary diagram might be confusing

Hi Martijn,

On 4 Sep 2014 at 12:23, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> I think much attention needs to be paid to how the spec is structured
> and how complete the examples are. You already introduce an issue
> tracker example, but you need to take that example seriously. Tell a
> story about how we have an issue tracker, and now we're going to use
> Hydra with it.
> 
> How does a Hydra api document get found for it? How does it describe
> things about the web service (classes, describe terms as links,
> relationship to JSON-LD)? Now let's look at a create operation. What
> else can you do with a Hydra class. Etc. Step by step build up the story.

Yeah, that's more or less what I had in mind. It will, however, probably be
something closer to the Event API demo as that domain is already pretty well
modelled in Schema.org. That way, we don't have to invent a proprietary
vocabulary but can reuse something already widely used and understood -
which I think is a major selling point of Hydra compared to many other
approaches which force you to reinvent the wheel all the time.


> I have some more detailed ideas for that which I hope to share later.

I'm looking forward to it!


--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler

Received on Thursday, 4 September 2014 14:24:56 UTC