Re: Action: various questions (container thread)

Christopher Allan Webber writes:

> ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ writes:
>> Hi,
>> I start work on compiling review of how, Activity Streams 2.0
>> and Hydra model Activity/Action/Operation, Handler/EntryPoint. I
>> aim to have it at useful stage before Wednesday session with Social WG
>> at TPAC, preferably already on Tuesday. I'd like to gather all relevant
>> questions on this thread to avoid creating noise on the list.
>> My first question relates to reason for creating sub properties of
>> Currently only one of them exists
>> (domainIncludes: ReviewAction, rangeIncludes: Review). I don't
>> understand the need for defining it instead of just using generic result.
>> It looks to me possibly somehow related to hydra:expects and hydra:returns
>> "While links are enough to build read-only Web APIs, more powerful
>> affordances are required to build read-write Web APIs. Thus, Hydra
>> introduces the notion of operations. Simply speaking, an Operation
>> represents the information necessary for a client to construct valid
>> HTTP requests in order to manipulate the server's resource state. As
>> such, the only required property of an Operation is its HTTP method.
>> Optionally, it is also possible to describe what information the server
>> *expects* or *returns*, including additional information about HTTP
>> status codes that might be returned."
>> In
>> Example: Movie review site API with -input and -output
>> Current published version of that example uses ReviewAction as both -
>> request and response. I would find it more intuitive to expect Review
>> and return either Review or Error.
>> request
>> {
>>   "@type": "Review",
>>   "itemReviewed": "",
>>   "reviewBody": "yada, yada, yada",
>>   "reviewRating": {
>>     "@type": "Rating",
>>     "ratingValue": "4"
>>   }
>> }
>> response: same Review just with @id or Error
>> Cheers!
> Heya elf Pavlik, sorry for the delay on replying to this.  I've seen
> your name around quite a bit before the Social WG; it's been good to see
> you very positive in the group.
> I've cc'ed Jessica, who is doing the bulk of related coding in
> MediaGoblin.
> Well... we have movie comments right now, but no review or even voting
> systems yet.  I'd love to have that of course in MediaGoblin...
> It's a bit embarassing, but I only have a rudimentary wrapping of my
> head around how Hydra and other ideas around publishing actions in an
> ActivityStreams 2.0 universe work.  That makes it kind of hard for me to
> respond... Jessica and I have had some back and forth fluctuations on
> debating how useful this stuff is.  I think neither of us has good
> enough of an understanding to respond clearly right now though.
> It seems to me (am I wrong?) that in some way following things similar
> to the Pump API method of this could be very similar in "becoming" an
> API for read/write access, though maybe I am wrong?
> For example, if we wanted to post a review according to the Pump API
> style, we could submit a Review object inReplyTo a movie object?  This
> seems like a pretty generic setup... is there really any need to define
> an API for everything?  Presently we're using the Pump API as also an
> upload API, and it seems to be working nicely as such.. I wonder what
> will happen when federation becomes available
> I guess that's a pretty preliminary wonder at the moment.  Maybe it
> would be easier to get a sense of what you're thinking in a discussion
> on IRC?
> Sorry that it's a very roundabout non-response!
>  - Chris

Hey, I'm deeply embarassed... elf sent me an email asking for feedback
off-list, and I meant to send this asking for clarification off-list
also because there's a large scope of this to which I'm unfamiliar, so
I felt I couldn't be helpful without knowing more.

Apologies, anyone other than elf can ignore this email :)

Received on Tuesday, 4 November 2014 18:46:29 UTC