- From: Ruben Verborgh <ruben.verborgh@ugent.be>
- Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2016 10:05:09 +0100
- To: Dietrich Schulten <ds@escalon.de>
- Cc: public-hydra@w3.org
Hi Dietrich, > Is this going to be a full-blown query language with OR, parentheses, > grouping, functions, FROM equivalent etc.? No, but it should be extensible to one / compatible with such languages. By defining a generic "expression" type, that should work. > If not, where do you draw the line? AND/OR seems fine with me. > I still feel it would be better not to add a general-purpose URL syntax > description language to Hydra, but rather have a way to say that the > client may formulate requests following a well-known, publicly specified > query syntax: > "urlSyntax": ... one of TPF, opensearch, odata ... Then we lose the self-descriptiveness and we're back to square one. The whole reason that I am using Hydra for TPF is that I don't want to say to clients "just do the TPF thing". I want a hypermedia control that says "you can filter the collection by subject, predicate, object". > That way, we do not have to explain the URL > syntax to the machine on a case-by-case basis Yes we do; and even worse, we only explain it in prose, not for machines. Best, Ruben
Received on Monday, 15 February 2016 09:05:43 UTC