- From: Asbjørn Ulsberg <asbjorn@ulsberg.no>
- Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2015 11:21:50 +0200
- To: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>
- Cc: Ruben Verborgh <ruben.verborgh@ugent.be>, Martynas Jusevičius <martynas@graphity.org>, Karol Szczepański <karol.szczepanski@gmail.com>, Hydra <public-hydra@w3.org>
2015-10-02 21:06 GMT+02:00 Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>: > JSON-LD is really useful for developers, but it’s important that Hydra > work at the model level, based on RDF, and not rely on specifics of > JSON-LD serialization. Of course. It's just important to me that serialization isn't demoted to a second-class citizen just because it's not important for the RDF model. > In principle, it should be possible to use a Hydra API with a different > RDF serialization, such as Turtle. For people who prefer the Turtle syntax; sure. > The fact that there are a number of different RDF serialization formats > shows that these can be ephemeral; Yea, and that is indeed a huge strength that I acknowledge. > tying to the data model (which, using triples/quads with URIs and > Literals is pretty simple) allows Hydra to maintain it’s value even if > another hot serialization format comes along (I hear people talking > about YAML-LD, for example). Yea, absolutely. > IMO, tying an API too closely to the particulars of a serialization format > is a mistake. Yes, as long as the serialization format isn't completely ignored, but seen as a very important part of getting Hydra understood and liked by regular developers, I agree. > That said, some guidance for serializing using JSON-LD is appropriate, > and a Primer which is entirely focused on developers using Hydra with > a JSON-LD serialization will be valuable. Immensely! :-) -- Asbjørn Ulsberg -=|=- asbjorn@ulsberg.no «He's a loathsome offensive brute, yet I can't look away»
Received on Monday, 5 October 2015 09:22:18 UTC