RE: What is the correct media-type for a Hydra specification?

On 19 Apr 2015 at 01:04, Erik Wilde wrote:
> hello markus.
> 
> On 2015-04-18 04:06, Markus Lanthaler wrote:
>> On 17 Apr 2015 at 00:48, Erik Wilde wrote:
>>> no, it doesn't. hardcoding media types into link relations is an
>>> anti-pattern that we should avoid.
>> I thought I was clear about this but apparently not clear enough. I'm *not* advocating to
> hardcode the media type in the link relation. It is completely fine to use conneg to negotiate
> between, e.g., JSON-LD and Turtle (as I explained above)
> 
> i always get tripped ub by the semweb community's special use of media
> types, so i should have been more specific. when i say "media type" i am
> talking about one that meaningfully exposes the represented data, not
> just the metamodel it is represented in. so it should be something where
> hydra, hydra++, or non-RDF API decription media types can be
> meaningfully labeled. the link relation type should not make any
> assumptions about the model type (i.e., hydra or something else) that's
> linked to.

Fair enough.

 
>>> it's as if HTML had <PNGimg/> and
>>> <GIFimg/> and <JPEGimg/> elements, and every time somebody somewhere
>>> came up with a new image format, there would be new links.
>> Would you also advocate to use conneg to negotiate between HTML, plain text,
> OpenDocument, Microsoft Word, ...?
> 
> sure. if you want to implement it that way, why not. you could also have
> different URIs, if you prefer, but most importantly, you would not have
> link relations for all those media types.
> 
> i'd have link relations saying "here's human-readable documentation",
> and then media types that at runtime would determine how the
> documentation is represented. that way, you don't need HTMLdocumentation
> and plaindocumentation and ODFdocumentation and WordDocumentation link
> relation. that's something that would be bad practice.
> 
> come to think of it, maybe we should whip up an I-D for these two
> relations: human-readable and machine-readable documentation. both
> aren't yet registered, and would be nice to have in many APIs. and i
> would strongly advocate for making those media-type independent.

Following your train of thought why two and not a single one? Shouldn't the media type define whether it is machine-readable or not?


--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler

Received on Tuesday, 21 April 2015 20:30:56 UTC