[ckan-dev] API Representation Registry

Fri Jun 3 09:35:19 UTC 2011

Sure I can mark it as a CREP but my question is: what is the mechanism
for deciding it?

We have an opportunity to do this in the current iteration or to build
some weird workaround involving lots of routing hacks that end up as
tech debt. As far as I have seen so far this is not a controversial
change by any means, and the implementation is pretty straightforward.
At the same time, CREPs seem to be where changes go to die at the
moment (the only fixed CREP is the CREP on CREPs) - how do we proceed?

- Friedrich

On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 10:00 AM, Seb Bacon <seb.bacon at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Friedrich,
>
> I know you weren't keen on CREPs, but could you at least mark it as
> type "CREP" ;-)
>
> Thanks
>
> Seb
>
> On 2 June 2011 22:44, Friedrich Lindenberg
> <friedrich.lindenberg at okfn.org> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I've just written up #1174 which proposes a registry for entity
>> representations that can be generated by the API. This is a
>> requirement for integrating RDF into the API without actually making
>> RDF into a core dependency of CKAN. I'd very much appreciate any
>> feedback on this as implementing this might nicely fit into the
>> current effort to improve RDF handling in the pdeu-1 sprint.
>>
>> Ticket: http://trac.ckan.org/ticket/1174
>>
>> - Friedrich
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ckan-dev mailing list
>> ckan-dev at lists.okfn.org
>> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/ckan-dev
>>
>
>
>
> --
> skype: seb.bacon
> mobile: 07790 939224
> land: 01531 671074
> web: http://baconconsulting.co.uk
>
> _______________________________________________
> ckan-dev mailing list
> ckan-dev at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/ckan-dev
>