Re: Hydra compared with JSON API, other specifications

Nice slides indeed, however I would disagree about most issues of the
Semantic Web:

Triplestores:
- immature,
- slow,
 -only few implementations (very few commercial).

SPARQL:
- complex
- few implementations,
- inappropriate for many real-world problems.


In my experience, SPARQL is intuitive (much more so than SQL) and
appropriate for very many real-world problems. And there's plenty of
implementations, both commercial and open-source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_subject-predicate-object_databases

On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 1:04 PM, Colin Maudry <colin@maudry.com> wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
>
> Great document, both concise and clear for a techie audience. Thanks!
>
> Colin
>
> On 06/01/16 10:09, Thomas Hoppe wrote:
>
> Hi Paul,
>
> I compared Hydra to other approaches in general a bit here:
>
> http://vanthome.github.io/rest-api-essay-presentation/rest_apis.html#28
>
> BG, Thomas
>
> On 01/04/2016 01:14 PM, Paul Mackay wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I’m iterating on a couple of API projects and have been reviewing the status
> of current API specification projects. JSON API
> (http://www.cerebris.com/blog/2015/06/04/jsonapi-1-0/) reached v1.0 earlier
> this year and is more comprehensive than HAL (see http://jsonapi.org/faq/).
> I suspect Hydra could be even more flexible and comprehensive in terms of
> defining an API. However within the JSON API community that spec is being
> promoted as an anti-bikeshedding tool (avoid lots of debate about small
> issues) and yet getting to 1.0 involved a lot of bikeshedding!
>
> Has there been any comparisons between JSON API and Hydra, and what is
> behind the design choices of Hydra? I suppose a similar FAQ for Hydra along
> the lines of why it goes beyond other API framework specifications would be
> great :)
>
> Thanks
>
> Paul
>
>
> --
> Paul Mackay | 07761 050542 | www.folklabs.com
>
>
>

Received on Wednesday, 6 January 2016 12:30:16 UTC