On 12 October 2010 14:57, Christoph Helma <helma at in-silico.ch> wrote:

> Excerpts from Nina Jeliazkova's message of Tue Oct 12 13:44:07 +0200 2010:
> >
> > Fine for me  - should we stick to literals or go for more complex
> constructs
> > ?
>
> I think that string literals should be suffficient.
>
> > BTW, in opentox.owl there should already be objects of type ot:Error, as
> > defined in the errors proposal by NTUA.
> >
> > Also, API - wise ,  how these should be accessed ?  I can think of two
> > options:
> >
> > 1) via /object/id/metadata   , then we need to invent metadata resources
> for
> > objects other than datasets;
>
> /object/{id} could return also ot:Info/Earning/Error (with exception of
> dataset, where we can use also /dataset/{id}/metadata, if we do not want to
> download the complete dataset).
>
> > 2)  via specific links /object/{id}/info , /object/{id}/warning ,
> > /object/{id}/error
>
> Loks nicer from a REST point of view, but I am not sure if it is worth
> to imlemement 3 additional methods for each service.
>


OK, let's go for the first option, including the three additional data
properties in the representation of the object.
In case of datasets could be accessible via both /dataset/{id} and
/dataset/{id}/metadata .

Should we document it under API 1.2 wiki page?

Best regards,
Nina


>
> Best regards,
> Christoph
> _______________________________________________
> Development mailing list
> Development at opentox.org
> http://www.opentox.org/mailman/listinfo/development
>