Am 11.11.2015 um 20:59 schrieb Dietrich Schulten: > > What makes me wonder is that you are talking about hydra metadata all > the time. > You're right, I shouldn't call it metadata. I guess I was looking for a broader term like "hydra constructs". > Your case seems to be a classic example for content negotiation. A > client requesting csv gets csv, json-ld gets the same resource, but as > json-ld, same for turtle, pdf, plaintext, html, you name it :-) > I guess my main concern is whether a "smart" client that fetches some non-RDF representation shall take a peek into one of the RDF representations to try to discover some "hydra constructs" that it then could use on the original mime type (CSV). That's the main point really, is that an expected behaviour? Does that even make sense? What if some representations on that resource don't support certain API functionalities that however are supported in the hydra-enabled RDF representation? Do the hydra constructs of a RDF representation apply to their own representation only or to others at the same resource (like CSV) as well? Cheers Maik
Received on Wednesday, 11 November 2015 22:30:15 UTC