W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-socialweb@w3.org > October 2014

RE: TPAC: Schema.org and Social WG ( legal / technical )

From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 13:54:28 +0200
To: <public-socialweb@w3.org>
Message-ID: <00f701cfeeb8$1a04a960$4e0dfc20$@gmx.net>
On 23 Okt 2014 at 13:24, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ wrote:
> On 10/23/2014 12:18 PM, Markus Lanthaler wrote:
>> catch up with current state of art in Hydra CG and try my best to
>>> represent it remotely in conversation in case Markus can't connect on
>>> that day. Maybe also we could take a look at making update to
>>> 'Integration of Hydra into Schema.org' draft
>>> http://www.hydra-cg.com/spec/latest/schema.org/
>> That document was created to help with the design of Actions in Schema.org. It doesn't
> make much sense to update it at this stage IMO. I made it clearer in the document that it is
> an outdated draft and serves purely as historical reference.
> Thanks for this clarification!
> Do you have somewhere online any information about major differences
> between Hydra and Schema.org Actions? To my understanding regular Hydra
> client currently will not handle Schema.org Actions.

The discussions we had last year (mostly Oct./Nov. 2013) probably contain the most information. They are in the archives of public-vocabs and public-hydra. Other than that, there's currently no formal comparison of the two approaches. That being said, both Schema.org and Hydra try hard to keep the complexity and size of the vocabulary small so comparing them side by side shouldn't be a big deal. The probably biggest difference is that Hydra currently focuses exclusively on HTTP-based Web APIs (there are plans to change that in the future, but we try to get the HTTP-part right first) whereas Actions in Schema.org support other protocols/mechanisms as well.


Markus Lanthaler
Received on Thursday, 23 October 2014 11:54:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:26:13 UTC