- From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
- Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 22:02:11 +0200
- To: <public-hydra@w3.org>
On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 11:00 PM, Erik Wilde wrote: > hello markus. Hi :-) > On 2015-04-15 12:39, Markus Lanthaler wrote: >> Yep, hydra:apiDocumentation is basically a link relation type (rel) that >> you can use to reference Hydra API docs. > > is it? i would say that link relations use either simple (and preferably > registered) strings, or URIs, so the actual URI one might use should be > expanded form of that "hydra CURIE", right? Yes, you would use the full URL as explained in the spec: http://www.hydra-cg.com/spec/latest/core/#discovering-a-hydra-powered-web-api > and more importantly, in > order to *link* to API documentation, wouldn't there be something in the > IANA registry that already would work well enough? maybe "describedby", > if that's specific enough for where you want to embed the link? the > original question wasn't about the link relation but about the media > type, which is a different thing. No, IMO there isn't anything specific enough in the IANA registry. I want this relation to be explicitly for Hydra clients. While content negotiation sounds nice in theory here, I think leveraging it in practice (at the level you proposed in another mail) introduces way to much complexity. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against conneg per se or for the serialization type (JSON-LD, Turtle, ...) in particular. I just don't think it makes sense to negotiate between different API description formats (RAML, Swagger, ...). They are different enough to get their own, distinct URLs. Makes sense? -- Markus Lanthaler @markuslanthaler
Received on Thursday, 16 April 2015 20:02:42 UTC