- From: Miguel <miguel.ceriani@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 18:10:40 +0100
- To: public-hydra@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CALWU=RsUbym14dd-5r9CXb2tBPi6_h7qZWfubPkkUaD7D4XNfQ@mail.gmail.com>
Hi everybody, this is the first post I write on this list so I will introduce myself first... I am Miguel Ceriani, a PhD candidate in computer science at Sapienza, University of Rome. I am working on a platform to define linked data applications using a dataflow language based on SPARQL. I am new to the Hydra spec and I am still sudying it. I have a problem that is not striclty in the scope of Hydra, but it seems to me quite related. I hope that I am not completely out of topic. Let's say I want to build a server that have to comply with a given Web API, that uses JSON, and I want to implement it backed on an LDP server. I can define a suitable Linked Data model and then map it from/to JSON with a JSON-LD profile. Then I have to map somehow the operations supported by the Web API with operations on LDP (assuming that the operations offered by the Web API are simple enough to be mapped directly to LDP operations). The question is: is there a standard way to do this second mapping? I can do it ad-hoc in different server-side languages, but ideally I would use some RDF vocabulary, like Hydra. As a fact Hydra seems very close to what I need, because it maps Web API operations to their Linked Data meaning. The main difference is that I would like to use this mapping to DEFINE the behaviour of a Web API, while (if I understood its purpose correctly) Hydra is used to DOCUMENT (to the client) the behaviour of a Web API. In general, it seems to me that such mapping could be useful to integrate existing Web APIs with linked data workflows. What do you think about it? Thanks, Miguel
Received on Tuesday, 27 January 2015 17:11:30 UTC