- From: Karol Szczepański <karol.szczepanski@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2016 09:08:00 +0100
- To: Tomasz Pluskiewicz <tomasz@t-code.pl>
- Cc: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>, Hydra <public-hydra@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAMYEVmmDGR_J_1pwGQ95VC+LgpbF-TNbNJpSB7wrnALzCG+HWQ@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Tomasz I asked same question in this post http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-hydra/2015Oct/0197.html and 'that ship sailed' (citing Markus :)). It was that way in previous design, but there were some issues - members were not associated to a single collection but to multiple views instead. I'd prefer reverse relation though as you suggest here. Best Karol 2016-01-13 8:39 GMT+01:00 Tomasz Pluskiewicz <tomasz@t-code.pl>: > January 12 2016 11:53 PM, "Markus Lanthaler" <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net> > wrote: > > > On 12 Jan 2016 at 22:10, Karol Szczepański wrote: > > > >> Hi Markus > >> > >>> If you don't like this approach, could you please point out in the > examples > >>> what exactly you don't like. Could you, in that case, please also > rewrite > >>> the examples to illustrate how you would see this working with the > >>> alternate > >>> proposal. > >>> > >>> From my perspective is good enough as it doesn't create separate > constructs > >> > >> for paging and filtering - in both examples presented we're using views > >> which I like. I'd probably prefer to move both to the term of 'filter' > >> (as I had this conversation with Ruben), but still being consequent here > >> is OK for me. > >> > >> The only objection I could made is that whe we're not keen to move the > >> paging to that templating mechanism as well: > > > > Actually, this proposal paves the way for that :-) > > But let's first see if we reach consensus on the proposed design. > > I'm all for it. This is what I meant yesterday when I wrote that paging > and filtering are two sides of the same coin - resource derivation. I find > your design abstract enough so that it doesn't make any assumptions about > the nature of the original and derived resource > > One thing I'm thinking about is inverting the resource/view relation in > representation. I think it's been discussed so please bear with me. What > were the cons of having the view "first"? > > { > "@id": "/collection?page=2", > "@type": "PartialCollectionView", > "first": "/collection?page=1", > "previous": "/collection?page=1", > "last": "/collection?page=2", > "viewOf": { > "@id": "/collection", > "totalItems": 2345, > "member": [ ... ] > } > } > > >
Received on Wednesday, 13 January 2016 08:08:34 UTC