W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-hydra@w3.org > November 2015

Re: Moving forward with hydra:filter (ISSUE-45)

From: Asbjørn Ulsberg <asbjorn@ulsberg.no>
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 09:25:09 +0100
Message-ID: <CAEdRHi5jm19RyVecJ9yFr6QhgeEVuyDz5qDZBrq8nK2OX6L8EA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
Cc: Hydra <public-hydra@w3.org>
2015-11-01 18:57 GMT+01:00 Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>:

> I don't think having different predicates for different logical operators
> scales. Especially not if you consider that the number of parameters varies.
> So we should come up with something else.

OData specifies 10 logical operators[1]. I'm not saying that list is
necessarily complete, but it's enough to be a good distance within the
80/20 rule. Would you say that having one predicate per such operator
is too much?

> IMO, hydra:filter describes the purpose of the referenced IRI templated very
> well. I would thus propose to stick to it for the time being and explore
> design that allow to make the IriTemplate at the other end more expressive.

I'm not sure IRI templates are expressive enough to solve the problem
at hand. It would be awesome if I could stuff an IRI template inside
my hydra:ApiDocumentation that supported the full range of OData Query
Options[2] (which is what many of my APIs support), but I don't think
that's possible.

> [...]
>
> Any other ideas?

Yes. Use OData Query Options. :)

____
[1] http://docs.oasis-open.org/odata/odata/v4.0/csprd02/part2-url-conventions/odata-v4.0-csprd02-part2-url-conventions.html#_Toc360800758
[2] http://docs.oasis-open.org/odata/odata/v4.0/csprd02/part2-url-conventions/odata-v4.0-csprd02-part2-url-conventions.html#_Toc360800755

-- 
Asbjørn Ulsberg           -=|=-        asbjorn@ulsberg.no
«He's a loathsome offensive brute, yet I can't look away»
Received on Monday, 9 November 2015 08:25:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 9 November 2015 08:25:39 UTC