- From: Asbjørn Ulsberg <asbjorn@ulsberg.no>
- Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 10:32:36 +0200
- To: Hydra <public-hydra@w3.org>
As with JSON-LD, I feel the RDF part of Hydra is both under-communicated and more of a nice-to-have than the core value of the technologies. I think this is a good thing. While RDF and the Semantic Web is awesome in its prospects, I highly doubt most people getting their hands dirty with JSON-LD or Hydra will have a Semantic Web perspective or problems related to RDF to solve. Related and relevant: "JSON-LD and Why I Hate the Semantic Web" http://manu.sporny.org/2014/json-ld-origins-2/ I expect JSON-LD to be used as a way to express URIs and hypermedia in JSON and I expect Hydra to be used as "The WSDL of HTTP / REST". Please arrest me if I'm wrong in these assumptions. Because of this, I think it's important to state this nice-to-have status of RDF as a design goal, since from what I've gathered so far from the discussions on this list, this isn't necessarily something everyone is in agreement with. People who are deeply intimate with RDF will of course have a very different perspective on the value of not needing to know RDF to think a piece of technology (that is built on top of RDF, nonetheless) is useful or not. So: How important is RDF and the Semantic Web as a design goal for Hydra? Should it be made more explicit? -- Asbjørn Ulsberg -=|=- asbjorn@ulsberg.no «He's a loathsome offensive brute, yet I can't look away»
Received on Thursday, 1 October 2015 08:33:06 UTC