> It's not that we decided one day that the world needs one more API > description format. No, LDT has evolved over many years of building SPARQL- > and Linked Data-native systems. Since it's useful to us, we think that by > extension it could be useful for other people working on such software. > > of course, I can imagine it: the comment was not trying to say the project is unuseful (sorry if I give that impression), my only concern is the adoption outside the "semantic" world. For example I'm not sure how many providers have implemented hydra in a first place. And -just to be clear- I like the ideas behind hydra, and I'm really curios to know more about LDT, but in my experience in order to learn from the past it's better to think about how to engage a mixed and large community from the beginning, just that. Many people I know at work doesn't consider the idea of intrudicing SPARQL, but could be engaged with a good api model which integrates JSON-LD, just to say. Maybe taking those kind of problem into accounts could help people understand the benefits of the adoption. When the discussion starts with the algebra, people almost always run away, in my direct experience :-) Finding a way to show practical fundation examples gives the opportunity instead to somebody who doesn't have a strong theory background but interests in study, a starting point for reading more and better. Otherwise it would be difficult to share the projects in team which are not composed only by "semantic web" expert. The suggestion was in that direction: if it's not helpful, please ignore it, and sorry for citing swagger and other things in a first place :-) I look forward to study more about the project Alfredo
Received on Friday, 30 June 2017 17:49:17 UTC