Re: Hydra Design Goals: How important is RDF?

>Should definitely be possible.
>We should think of images, video, …
>Link headers.

We should. But I don't feel like link headers are the option here.
How expressive can you be with bare headers? What takes precedence, body or 
a header?
How complicated hydra-aware client have to be to make it all happen? I think 
it's enough we're referencing rdf:Property in supported properties to 
enforce on a client full reasoner capabilities.

I'm curious why the API documentation approach is somehow far behind 
hypermedia controls embeded in the response payload.
This inbalance should be minimized to have both approaches equivalent. 
Example: how to express a response is a collection in API documentation?

I have few thoughts on this but I think I'll start another topic.

Best

Karol

-----Oryginalna wiadomość----- 
From: Ruben Verborgh
Sent: Friday, October 2, 2015 11:54 AM
To: karol.szczepanski@gmail.com
Cc: public-hydra@w3.org
Subject: Re: Hydra Design Goals: How important is RDF?

> I'me aware of what you point at. I'm just open to a situation when a
> response is not an RDF.

Should definitely be possible.
We should think of images, video, …

> You cannot pass that as a hypermedia control as
> there is no way of injecting this into a response that is i.e. binary.

Link headers.

Best,

Ruben

Received on Monday, 5 October 2015 17:33:58 UTC