- From: Thomas Hoppe <thomas.hoppe@n-fuse.de>
- Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2015 12:02:37 +0100
- To: public-hydra@w3.org
- Message-ID: <54F9894D.7070304@n-fuse.de>
Hi Jacopo, Markus' goal is "to keep the simple case simple". and I think its very inconvenient to give a developer lego pieces which he needs to use to model his own collection instead of having this ubiquitous concept available in the vocab. That's what developers know and except from a vocab whose goal it is to describe Web APIs. Greets, Thomas On 03/06/2015 11:56 AM, Jacopo Scazzosi wrote: > Hello everyone. > > Between hydra:Link and hydra:supportedOperations, Hydra seems to have > a lot of descriptive power. > > Wouldn't it be better to let developers pick whatever implementations > of the "collection" concept they like and just provide them with the > necessary tools to describe how a client should interact with them? > > For however complex or simple the representations provided by such an > implementation might be, Hydra seems to be already capable of > describing what to do with it. A <METHOD> expecting X and returning Y > is always the same. > > I guess my question is: why the focus on "collections"? What am I missing? > > > > -- > > Jacopo Scazzosi > Developer > http://www.jacoscaz.com
Received on Friday, 6 March 2015 11:03:07 UTC