Re: Why the collection?

Hi Jacopo

These is exactly what I have been trying to say some time last month. I 
think that we are going into specific design of a collection. My point 
was similar, that any kind of collection (or partial view) could be 
modeled with simple building blocks like Operations and Links. Any 
specialized terms sometimes seem a little out of place in a 
general-purpose hypermedia vocabulary I think Hydra is.

On the other hand non-linked hypermedia approaches all sport some notion 
of a collection, though I would very much draw any conclusion from that 
simple fact.

Thanks,
Tom

On 2015-03-06 12:32, Jacopo Scazzosi wrote:
> Hello Thomas.
>
> Thanks for the clarification. Isn't playing with lego exactly what we
> are all doing with RDF vocabularies and ontologies, though?
>
> In my learning process I've already encountered quite a few of them
> (skos, rdf(s), hydra, foaf, xlmns, owl, schema, ...). It already feels like
> "playing lego" (just as picking and assembling the right components
> for an API's underlying architecture does).
>
> Also, if the goal is to "describe Web APIs" from a practical,
> what-can-you-do-with-this point of view, then wouldn't Hydra benefit
> from the separation of concerns obtained by delegating the semantics of
> collections to dedicated vocabs?
>
> I'm absolutely no expert but collections seem to be so context-specific
> that even you guys are experiencing some difficulties in finding a common
> ground - hence my considerations.
>
> Cheers.
>

Received on Friday, 6 March 2015 18:49:25 UTC