Re: Invitation to Hydra meetup in Belgium

Thanks Ruben

Indeed, looks way better now!

> As you can see, our proposal is to
> take a step back after years of Hydra development,

Let's take a view from bird's eye perspective - I don't like to step back :)

> check whether we are building the right thing

I personally believe we are

> and whether we are building in the right way.

Obviously not really :/.

>11:00: matching requirements to the current Hydra specification
>   which requirements are a good match?
>   what requirements are not a good match?

Who and how will evaluate these? I think hydra should at least be
enabled for some exotic scenarios with generic vocabulary elements

>13:00: related specifications and connections

Can we name these? Are we supposed to look only at RDF based
alternatives or for ReST APIs and hypermedia in general?

>15:30: next steps and plan of action
>    who writes what?

I'd like to encourage people to create their own software, but issues
with logo or GH priviledges etc. are not helping.

>    what software do we need?

Here you go:
- compliant reference clients in JS/TS, Java, C#, maybe pyhton (but
all other platforms are always welcome)
- extensions to existing server-side API frameworks like Spring in
Java or ASP.NET Core MVC / WebAPI for .net
- ReST endpoint automated test tool (generating test payloads based on
API description) - yep, I can hear all those voices complaining that
auto-generated stuff is against hypermedia, but it really helps
especially with after-release automated smoke test
- ReST endpoint automated documentation generators - in commercial
environments business wants these kind of artifacts; also this
sometimes proves to help team new-joiners
- examples/guidance

> Happy to look into travel support,
> as mentioned in the previous mail.

I may need it

> If you think this is a good idea,
> could you please fill out the Doodle?

Ok, but for now this would be hypothetical

Best regards

Karol S.

wt., 5 lut 2019 o 23:24 Ruben Verborgh (UGent-imec)
<Ruben.Verborgh@ugent.be> napisał(a):
>
> Dear Karol,
>
> > For me personally the issue is that while acting as a private person
> > without neither corporate nor scholar support I'd need some more
> > detailed agenda and expected outcome of such a meeting before.
>
> Okay, I will sketch the agenda in more detail.
> I will assume a one-day program for now.
>
>
> AGENDA
>
> 9:00: round of introductions, usage of Hydra, goals
> 9:30: detailed requirements analysis: what are our hypermedia needs?
> 11:00: matching requirements to the current Hydra specification
>     which requirements are a good match?
>     what requirements are not a good match?
> 12:00: lunch (offered by imec)
> 13:00: related specifications and connections
>     which older parts of Hydra are modeled by other specs in the meantime?
>     which requirements that Hydra does not meet are matched by other specs?
> 14:00: required additions to Hydra
>     based on the requirements and other specs,
>     which parts are not in Hydra that should be?
> 15:30: next steps and plan of action
>     who writes what?
>     what software do we need?
>     how will we test interoperability?
> 16:30: plans for continuation and wrap-up
>     do we turn this into a W3C recommendation?
>
>
> DELIVERABLES
>
> D1 Requirements analysis for hypermedia RDF
>
> D2 Match of Hydra with the requirements
>
> D3 Relation to other specifications
>
> D4 Future plans for Hydra and concrete action points
>
> D5 Governance proposal for the Hydra spec
>
>
> As you can see, our proposal is to
> take a step back after years of Hydra development,
> check whether we are building the right thing
> and whether we are building in the right way.
>
> > From both financial and time perspective it's just a quite an effort
> > for me to attend to that meeting in person
>
> Happy to look into travel support,
> as mentioned in the previous mail.
>
>
> If you think this is a good idea,
> could you please fill out the Doodle?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ruben

Received on Wednesday, 6 February 2019 20:07:32 UTC