Re: Hydra Status

I think having a tutorial about how to boilerplate and deploy a
HYDRA-enhanced REST server with any database/store would be much useful,
but it needs a common effort. Providing a free training data sample big
enough to demonstrate features.

The best training ground is any application that needs to provide network
of sensors' data: how to collect it from devices, and how to serve it to
upper layers to publication or common data infrastructure tools. I have
tried to gather resources and developers around this kind of effort for an
open-source implementation, but I haven't had enough luck until now. I can
provide a much interesting open-sourced RDF implementation for networks of
sensors and some "free-to-play with" data, beside some good understanding
of the Python ecosystem. Again, if somebody is interested in getting
involved in this kind of effort, let's do this. I can provide more details
or we can start a dedicated newsletter.

Build a sample implementation (a small network of servers simulating a
real-time application) is the best option in my opinion.

Best,

2016-11-11 12:40 GMT+01:00 Kev Kirkland <kev@dataunity.org>:

> Hi all,
>
> Hydra is great and definitely going in the right direction, but I agree
> that a review of the overall architecture would be beneficial too.
>
> There's been some developments in other groups since we started which
> might help. One of the areas I've had problems is with constraining choices
> in requests - we might want to look at replacing/augmenting Hydra:Class
> with the work the Shapes Working Group are doing (e.g.
> https://www.w3.org/TR/shacl/).
>
> I've also had a problem finding ways to navigate through a sequence of
> steps in an API (e.g. when you need to do multiple form posts in a
> sequence). Interesting to see that Mike Amundson has been compiling some
> patterns for hypermedia - I think we could benefit from the navigation
> patterns:
>
> https://www.oreilly.com/learning/12-patterns-for-hypermedia-service-
> architecture
>
> Cheers,
>
> Kev
>
>
>
>
>
> On 11 November 2016 at 10:03, Ruben Verborgh <Ruben.Verborgh@ugent.be>
> wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> Yes, we need to do something to bring the ideas in Hydra back to life.
>>
>> At the same time, I think we need a grand architectural vision for all of
>> this.
>> Only bottom-up, issue-driven improvement will not get us there, I'm
>> afraid.
>>
>> I think we need to make a clean start and do things the right way:
>> start from the scenarios we which to enable,
>> define concrete use cases and examples of how Hydra should be used.
>>
>> Then, we should work our way top-down, finding the larger pieces we need
>> (two distinct pieces being API description and hypermedia controls, IMHO)
>> and than gradually going down, perhaps with different subgroups
>> working on different pieces of varying granularity.
>>
>> I believe the current Hydra specification was great as a working document,
>> and has spawned several ideas and discussions,
>> but I'm afraid we'd become stuck in such discussions
>> if we don't get the grand design right upfront.
>> We now have more experience to get this right
>> than we had when this was all starting,
>> so I propose we all take the opportunity to do so.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Ruben
>>
>
>
>
> --
> www.dataunity.org
> twitter: @data_unity
>



-- 
¤ acM ¤
Lorenzo
Moriondo
@lorenzogotuned
https://stackoverflow.com/cv/lorenzomoriondo
https://www.linkedin.com/in/lorenzomoriondo
https://github.com/Mec-iS
https://profiles.udacity.com/u/lorenzomoriondo