On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 6:14 AM, Markus Lanthaler <markus.lantha...@gmx.net> wrote: > Hi Ruben, > > You probably already expected me asking this :-) Why not Hydra [1]?
Cool. Very similar to RDF Forms in important ways, though I think RDF Forms internalizes some useful features that Hydra could benefit from; stripping out information that isn't required (or isn't an optimization) for a state transition, e.g. DeleteResourceOperation. PUT should also be usable without any required parameterization, though declaring an accepted media type (something that seems to be missing from hydra) can be considered an optimization. And POST can be used for much more than creation, so I think "CreateResourceOperation" is a misnomer (or else overly specific). Also, the next version of RDF Forms has been sitting in my head for a few years after collecting a little bit of experience with the current version. One of the big changes I would make is to go fully predicate based rather than class based simply because I expect it would be more flexible and also fit better into, e.g. HTML or the Link header. So if I had a POST-accepting resource, instead of this: <http://example.org/res1> a hydra:CreateResourceOperation . I'd go with; <> hydra:sink <http://example.org/res1> . (yah, that example represents at least 3 improvements I'd suggest for the language - sorry if it's too dense) I have some other thought similar to Ruben's too. But I've gone ahead and joined the group, and once I'm caught up on the discussion to date, we can discuss this further over there.