Re: Hydra compared with JSON API, other specifications

Thanks Asbjørn,
this is a very nice and wordy explanation of what my experiences and 
perceptions are :)
I also agree with your conclusions about why JSON-LD will see large 
adoption.

On 01/11/2016 08:34 PM, Asbjørn Ulsberg wrote:
> On 11. jan. 2016, at 15.03, Thomas Hoppe <thomas.hoppe@n-fuse.de> wrote:
>
>> On 01/11/2016 10:55 AM, Martynas Jusevičius wrote:
>>> Just to clarify, what people of which industry?
>> ...commercial IT enterprises and the open source, non-profit world.
>> So basically everything except academia.
> I’d just like to echo this, since a lot of people having long time experience with the Semantic Web and related technologies seem to have a  skewed perception on its relevance outside of the circles they’re involved in.
>
> The ~20 years of experience I have from working in Enterprise IT tells me that besides some small groups investing in Topic Maps and similar technologies, the ideas behind the Semantic Web and the Semantic Web itself is at best seen as obscure and alien and at best completely unknown.
>
> I hope and think JSON-LD and Hydra can change that, but I think this is important for people to realize when working in this field and which was a crucial part of JSON-LD’s road to success. I think JSON-LD appeals to people not because of its RDF foundation, but despite it. It strikes an almost perfect balance between being easy to understand and applicable to real-world and enterprise problems as well as being a great application of RDF and through that being able to sew the web tighter together.
>
> I think most people will choose JSON-LD for the former benefit and discover the latter almost accidentally. In the same way, I think people will use Hydra as something as banale as “WSDL for REST” and discover its hypermedia richness and power over time and by chance.
>