- From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
- Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 21:05:39 +0200
- To: "'Hydra'" <public-hydra@w3.org>
On 7 Apr 2016 at 09:29, Tomasz Pluskiewicz wrote: > Hi guys, > >> No, I didn't. Sorry. What I actually meant was https://schema.org/potentialAction >> >>>> An action performed by a direct agent and indirect participants upon a >>>> direct object. > > Hm, isn't the schema:Action intended for describing real physical actions? Such as in the > example on docs page? No, it isn't restricted to physical actions. >>>>> I'm feeling kind of like the "/blog/published" resource should be a link >>>>> with it's own operation. I'm still not sure how what to do about the >>>>> predefined "body". >>>> >>>> The simplest approach would be to add a "status" property to the blog >>>> post. >>> >>> Yes, and then PATCH it? Or expose it as a resource and PUT on it. Agree? >> >> Either is fine. I think for most resources, requiring the client to replace the resource, i.e., >> sending all other properties as well, would be fine too. > > Yes of course, but doesn't approach reduce the API to a CRUD. Want to > publish the BlogPost? Change the status property and PUT/PATCH the > resource or PUT the status resource. You can obviously also define a different message and post it to some URL to get it processed by the server. That's more work without a clear benefit though IMO. > I expect a more rich experience possible where we actually transfer > these representations between components. I this case it is transferring > the BlogPost to a collection of published items. > > The LINK/UNLINK does look interesting but again we'd need Link > header specification on hydra:Operations. Yeah, we need to make operations more expressive to be able to describe such interfaces. -- Markus Lanthaler @markuslanthaler
Received on Thursday, 7 April 2016 19:06:14 UTC