W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-awwsw@w3.org > November 2009

Re: ideas: the REST of HTTP & the SPARQL of GET

From: Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 09:28:54 +0000
To: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
CC: AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C71EE2D6.A170%michael.hausenblas@deri.org>
> My other recent idea:
> 
> We are suggesting that some response messages can be translated into
> RDF. In the same way we should be able to say that a request message
> (such as a GET) can be translated into SPARQL, or something very close
> to it.

Good idea! Please note that we have recently discussed this in: 'RESTful
SPARQL? You Name It! Aligning SPARQL with REST and Resource Orientation' [1]

Cheers,
      Michael

[1] http://sw-app.org/pub/restful-sparql.pdf

-- 
Dr. Michael Hausenblas
LiDRC - Linked Data Research Centre
DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute
NUIG - National University of Ireland, Galway
Ireland, Europe
Tel. +353 91 495730
http://linkeddata.deri.ie/
http://sw-app.org/about.html



> From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
> Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 08:38:35 +0100
> To: AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org>
> Subject: ideas: the REST of HTTP & the SPARQL of GET
> Resent-From: AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org>
> Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 07:39:11 +0000
> 
> Larry Masinter points out that the HTTP spec is really two beasts: An
> operational, testable portion dealing mostly with syntax of messages
> and with caching, couched in MUST language, and a separate REST level
> dealing with "resource state" that would not be testable (falsifiable)
> by someone observing an exchange since the only way to know whether
> it's being followed would be to look inside the server.  I'm thinking
> this second level, which I've been avoiding, could be given its own
> class and properties, and that the treatment of this part of the HTTP
> spec might be done instead of (or coincident with) a treatment of REST
> as described by Roy.
> 
> The class of REST-compliant resources is what HTTP calls a "network
> data object" and it would be a proper subclass of "HttpResource".
> Everything else is just a "network service".
> 
> My other recent idea:
> 
> We are suggesting that some response messages can be translated into
> RDF. In the same way we should be able to say that a request message
> (such as a GET) can be translated into SPARQL, or something very close
> to it.
> 
> Jonathan
> 
Received on Tuesday, 10 November 2009 09:29:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 10 November 2009 09:29:40 GMT