- From: Asbjørn Ulsberg <asbjorn@ulsberg.no>
- Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 23:55:53 +0200
- To: Ruben Verborgh <ruben.verborgh@ugent.be>
- Cc: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>, Hydra <public-hydra@w3.org>
2015-10-06 13:57 GMT+02:00 Ruben Verborgh <ruben.verborgh@ugent.be>: > I'd prefer: > Hydra-enabled APIs SHOULD offer at least a JSON-LD > representation of their resources. Sounds good to me! :-) > With a different@ context, it would be much more accessible. > > The current structure needs to be navigated as: > > response["@graph"][0]["@graph"][0]["hydra:property"] > > which throws away of the main advantage of JSON-LD, > namely that it is supposed to be "easily" usable as JSON. Aha. I see. And I agree; that doesn't look very nice. > JSON-LD framing (http://json-ld.org/spec/latest/json-ld-framing/) > allows JSON-LD documents to take a certain shape. > > Only if the resource above is forced in a certain shape, > it would be usable as simple JSON as well. Yes, that makes sense. Seems like the "Library" example on the JSON-LD Playground has a Frame. http://json-ld.org/playground/ > So my argument is: simply mandating application/ld+json > does not necessarily simplify things for developers. > We probably need to impose a certain frame as well. Is this something we could do, realistically? -- Asbjørn Ulsberg -=|=- asbjorn@ulsberg.no «He's a loathsome offensive brute, yet I can't look away»
Received on Wednesday, 7 October 2015 21:56:21 UTC