Re: List of supported use cases for compliant and conditionally compliant client from Tomasz Pluskiewicz on 2016-06-18 (public-hydra@w3.org from June 2016)

From: Tomasz Pluskiewicz <tomasz@t-code.pl>
Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2016 22:19:15 +0200
To: public-hydra@w3.org
Message-ID: <b0c98c4e-d4f2-a3bf-eb12-79a35358d31a@t-code.pl>

On 2016-06-18 21:04, Karol Szczepański wrote:
> I'd also stick to high-level operations/links. These are more bound to
> given domain - HTTP is just a tool here.
> I'd give up on making a distinction between link and operation, but I'd
> lean to operations rather than to links.

I don't disagree in general (having wrote what I did before). However 
with Hydra (and Linked Data), they are communicated in a different way. 
Links are just predicates/properties. Assuming dereferenceability each 
link can be treated as a possible GET operation. On the other hand you 
have SupportedClass->SupportedOperations, which are disconnected from 
the link itself.

Hence, you will not escape the distinction and mixing operations with 
links will just lead to confusion. Even if they are conceptually similar.

Also, it could be just that HTTP makes them similar. Another protocol 
used for REST could treat them differently.

Received on Saturday, 18 June 2016 20:19:57 UTC