API - Hypermedia Specifications

To make Hypermedia implementation easier, there are linking specifications already in existence. Each specification is slightly different. Let's try to compare different -2 specifications.

Referenced from Undisturbed Rest

	Strength	Weaknesses
Collection + JSON	Strong choice for Collections          Templated queries          Early wide adoption          Recognized as a standard	JSON only          Lack of identifier for documentation          More complex/ difficult to implement
HAL	Dynamic          Nestable          Easy to read/implement          Multi-format          URL templating          Inclusion of documentation          Wide adoption          Strong community          Recognized as a standard hypermedia spec          RFC proposed	JSON/XML format architecturally different          CURIE’s are tightly coupled
JSON LD	Strong format for data linking          Can be used across multiple data formats          Strong community          Large working groups          Recognized by W3C as standard	JSON-Only          More complex to integrate/interpret          No identifier for documentation
CPHL	Designed for cross-platform consistency; allows loosely coupled documentation          Incorporates API Definitions          Method and code on demand          Allows for multiple formats while also providing a strict naming structure for common actions	Poor adoption/not heavily tested          Can become bloated          Work in progress          Listed as brainstorming documents
SIREN	Provides a more verbose spec          Query templating and form fields          Incorporates actions          Multi-format	Poor adoption          Lacks documentation          Work in progress
JSON API	Simple versatile format          Easy to read/implement          Flat link grouping          URL templating          Wide adoption          Strong community          Recognized as hypermedia standards	JSON-Only          Lack of Identifier for documentation          Still, work in progress