- From: Martynas Jusevičius <martynas@graphity.org>
- Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 10:55:01 +0100
- To: Thomas Hoppe <thomas.hoppe@n-fuse.de>
- Cc: Hydra <public-hydra@w3.org>
Just to clarify, what people of which industry? On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 10:37 AM, Thomas Hoppe <thomas.hoppe@n-fuse.de> wrote: > Hi Martynas, Kingsley > > thanks for your feedback. > I agree that some if not most points on this slide are no longer valid, > that's why the heading says "". > This slide should describe how the Sem Web stuff was in the past > _and_ how it was perceived by industry people which were not involved with > these technologies. > > BG, Thomas > > > On 01/06/2016 01:29 PM, Martynas Jusevičius wrote: > > 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 Monday, 11 January 2016 09:55:33 UTC