- From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
- Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 16:25:22 +0200
- To: <public-hydra@w3.org>
On 4 Sep 2014 at 12:27, Martijn Faassen wrote: > On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 11:45 PM, Ruben Verborgh 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. :) Oh.. If you have further questions, please don't hesitate to ask them! -- Markus Lanthaler @markuslanthaler
Received on Thursday, 4 September 2014 14:26:01 UTC