- From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
- Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2015 22:38:16 +0100
- To: <public-hydra@w3.org>
On 25 Feb 2015 at 00:44, Thomas Hoppe wrote: > I was following the recent discussions and I agree with what you said, > Markus, I want to add my summary: Good :-) > 1.) We should be able to indirectly express that a collection in terms > of hydra whose members are in a foaf:knows relationship with some > subject, actually means that this relationship is true for every member > of the collection. As far as I have understood, the `hydra:manages` > construct allows just that. In theory, yes. But strictly speaking we haven't defined the semantics in such a way (yet). Currently you'd need to explicitly make those assertions for every member. > And I think this is not only useful for the > often stressed reasoner; This info can also be leveraged by a client > that happens to understand the construct in hydra and can react upon > it... so no AI or reasoning required here. Well, it would be a reasoner nevertheless. It just happens to only make Hydra inferences... but that's probably fine I guess. > 2.) I'm against having the members of the collection outside > of the collection. > > 3.) I understand people who argue that it would be nice to _also_ > express paging in terms of a offset/ limit tuple. Yes, this is not good > for those "streamy resources" like newsfeeds but for ranged resources it > is a way to express this and it is heavily used in the wild. So we would > help people to describe existing APIs if we can offer this. I don't ask > for adding this to the vocab but we could offer some advice (also > outside of the spec) how to model such a construct, maybe with hydra's > `firstPage`, `lastPage`, `nextPage`, `previousPage` and IRI templates as > proposed by Greg. Noted :-) I'd still like to get the most basic model done first though. > 4.) I think Ruben is right and we should have the concept > of singe pages/ partial collections/ whatever because the > alternative just seems to just wrong. I agree but quite a few people strongly opposed to that... at least in the form it was proposed. Maybe we find an alternative design that satisfies everyone. Cheers, Markus > Greets, Thomas > > On 02/23/2015 10:48 PM, Markus Lanthaler wrote: >> I think we are starting to go in circles regarding ISSUE-42. Would everyone >> agree with the following statements? 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.) >> >> 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. >> >> >> >> -- >> Markus Lanthaler >> @markuslanthaler >> >> >> >>
Received on Wednesday, 4 March 2015 21:38:48 UTC