Re: Hydra compared with JSON API, other specifications

...commercial IT enterprises and the open source, non-profit world.
So basically everything except academia.

On 01/11/2016 10:55 AM, Martynas Jusevičius wrote:
> 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 I agree that some if not most points on this slide are no longer valid,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
>>
>>
>>
>>