Re: What can we agree on? (ISSUE-42)

Hi,

Le 23 févr. 2015 à 22:48, Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net> a écrit :

> I think we are starting to go in circles regarding ISSUE-42. Would everyone
> agree with the following statements?

a logician asks his 3 children: "do you all want to go to the zoo?"
First one answers: "I don't know"
Second one: "I don't know"
Third one: "yes"
;-)


> Is there anything I forgot?
> 
> 
> In Web APIs, we often need to return a lot of related data, e.g., persons
> someone knows
> 
> Sometimes it is too much data to be returned in a single response
> 
> Therefore, we would like to split this data and return it in multiple
> responses instead
> 
> Nevertheless, the client needs to be able understand, that all these
> responses are actually just partial views of a big "collection" (the persons
> someone knows)
> 
> Due to the way some vocabularies are defined, we can't link directly to such
> "helper resources" as that would be misinterpreted by clients (a client
> would misinterpret a helper resource to be a person if it would be linked to
> via foaf:knows e.g.)
> 

I agree with the point, but it is not a question related to paging as such: it is related to the fact we use an helper resource (eg. /alice/friends) linked to a "main resource" (eg. /alice).
I think that the question of the definition of the collection, and the question of paging, are "orthogonal concerns" and should be decoupled


> We want the relationships to be explicitly expressed so that we don't have
> to rely on a reasoner
> 
> If JSON-LD is used as the serialization format, the documents should look as
> idiomatic as possible. I.e., they should closely resemble current Web APIs.
> 

fps

Received on Tuesday, 24 February 2015 14:21:12 UTC