Fwd: the necessity of describing responses in-band

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