No XML or JSON output for Groups

[Jason Stirnaman]

Howard,

What's the intent for data representations of Groups now? It seems that RSS is the only format that works now, although I see https://github.com/BibApp/BibApp/blob/master/app/controllers/groups_controller.rb is still publishing XML, JSON, and YAML. Is that an oversight? I think there should be some way to grab a list of people in a group, if not all works in a group (which might be too much payload). I suppose RDF would be the way to go, but I haven't given any thought to the elements.

Thanks,

Jason

[Howard Ding]

I don't know - any discussion on that predates me. If you want something
via xml or json feel free to start an issue on github with a suggestion
about what you'd like and I'll see what I can do. (Or if you want
implement it and I'd be happy to pull it in.)

I doubt I'll have any serious time for Bibapp before next week, though.

Howard

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "bibapp-dev" group.
> To post to this group, send email to bibap...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> bibapp-dev+...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/bibapp-dev?hl=en.

[Howard Ding]

Hi Jason,

Having looked at this a bit more, my inclination would be to leave the
actual RSS rendering for the group/show action more or less as it is and
to have another action for groups that could get the kind of data that
you want. In that case since we'd be starting it from scratch we could
try to support more or less whatever you (and others) actually want.

It does seem reasonable to expect to be able to get general group
information and a list of people in the group. As you suggest, the works
are more questionable - if included I'd be inclined to support
parameters to control the span and/or number of works returned in some
way. If not included then to make sure that there is enough information
about each person returned (and an appropriate action on persons) so
that the works could then be fetched via the persons. Obviously more
work for clients in at least a couple ways, but also a reasonable design
decision if taken, I think.

If you've given any more thought to what you actually want to see here
we can think some more about how to achieve it.

Howard

On 2/1/2012 2:55 PM, Jason Stirnaman wrote: