Re: Replace hydra:Error with application/problem+json

We're post-LC and the WG has very little energy for more changes. I'd suggest that if someone wanted to do this, they could easily do so in a separate document.

Cheers,


> On 27 Sep 2015, at 9:58 am, Asbjørn Ulsberg <asbjorn@ulsberg.no> wrote:
> 
> Hi, Erik and thanks for your valuable contribution to this discussion. Very much appreciated!
> 
> 2015-09-26 18:25 GMT+02:00 Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu>:
> (3) in the same way as the I-D currently has a section on how to serialize application/problem+json in XML, there could be another one about RDF. this would simply mean that the approach taken in (2) would become an integral part of the spec, instead of being standalone. however, my feeling is that this might slow down the progression of the draft, and i think that mark is in favor of keeping these things separate, instead of integrating them (am i reading your mind correctly, mark?).
> 
> I completely understand this concern. But, I think that since this draft was started, the world has changed, namely; JSON-LD has become a W3C Recommendation. As with a lot of standards from that origin (like everything SOAP-related), not every standard is something we necessarily need to acknowledge and take into consideration, I do feel that JSON-LD is so important and at the same time so low-cost to implement that the arguments against considering it should be extremely well versed.
> 
> Since problem+json is still in a draft status, there is room and possibility to reconsider the design and adjust the current syntax so it matches something that would be JSON-LD compliant. For problem+json it wouldn't mean much, syntax wise; it would mostly be a political statement in embracing JSON-LD. If someone involved with the draft is deeply opposed to JSON-LD, that is of course an important aspect that might be out of scope for this discussion, but if that's not the case, I'd love to see the options discussed and concluded one way or another.
>  
> regardless of the chosen approach, in think it would be great to see adoption of application/problem+json outside of JSON-centric approaches (that was my motivation to work on an XML model), but it might take a bit of work to figure out how to best reflect the JSON model into RDF. as with XML, the biggest issue is the extension/openness part, which tends to not map very well between different metamodel worlds.
> 
> Yes, I agree. Let's see how mister Nottingham feels about the matter. 
> 
> -- 
> Asbjørn Ulsberg           -=|=-        asbjorn@ulsberg.no
> «He's a loathsome offensive brute, yet I can't look away»

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/

Received on Tuesday, 29 September 2015 07:24:34 UTC