- From: elf Pavlik <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org>
- Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 09:03:31 +0200
- To: public-socialweb@w3.org
I very much recommend reading this article by Ruben Verborgh and discussion in comments. To explain relevance for our work: As I understand, one of main motivations for registering new media type application/activity+json relates to hopes that people could rely on implicit JSON-LD context[1]. At the same time, we seem to prefer defining separate vocabulary to address API concerns. If we do so, and at the same time we will find benefit with including information about API controls in the body of a response. *Explicit* JSON-LD context becomes necessity again and using application/activity+json media type comes of little benefit while possibly adding complexity as Melvin tries to argue on earlier thread. Enjoy the read! http://ruben.verborgh.org/blog/2015/10/06/turtles-all-the-way-down/ [1] https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/issues/132 -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: the necessity of describing responses in-band Resent-Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2015 12:17:57 +0000 Resent-From: public-hydra@w3.org Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 14:17:24 +0200 From: Ruben Verborgh <ruben.verborgh@ugent.be> To: Hydra <public-hydra@w3.org> Dear all, I've written a blog post that describes the necessity of describing responses in-band: http://ruben.verborgh.org/blog/2015/10/06/turtles-all-the-way-down/ More than an argument for REST/hypermedia, it's an explanation of _how_ we should realize that with RDF-enabled representations. In this context, the Hydra Core Vocabulary is a major enabler, because it lets us describe hypermedia controls in RDF. Best, Ruben
Received on Thursday, 15 October 2015 07:03:33 UTC