Re: Linked Data Templates paper for XML London 2016

Patrick,

great to have feedback :)

Could it be that with "minting" you have "skolemization" in mind?
https://github.com/Graphity/graphity-processor/wiki/Data-input#blank-node-skolemization

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 7:28 PM, Patrick Logan <patrickdlogan@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thinking about this just a little bit more... I wonder whether an
> additional operation could be useful...
>
> ...a POST to "mint" an IRI on the current LDT host that is an OWL
> "same as" for a given IRI. The original IRI may or may not be hosted
> on some other LDT system. The new IRI could then be used for local LDT
> operations about that resource.
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 10:53 AM, Patrick Logan <patrickdlogan@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I like the conceptual regularity of IRI's, pattern matching, and
>> templates and the HTTP verbs.
>>
>> My main question would be about the range of applications that can be
>> built with respect to using standard vocabularies. i.e. my
>> understanding is I am limited in applying the HTTP verbs only to
>> resources that share the IRI prefix with the linked data host. The
>> templates can refer to all the standard and common vocabularies, but I
>> cannot PUT or POST anything about a FOAF person for example, unless
>> that person has an IRI on that LDT host?
>>
>> As I said, it makes neat conceptual sense. Could it limit the range of
>> application expressiveness? Could there be "patterns of usage" that
>> would allow a kind of "federation of LDT hosts" that would support
>> federating your server and my server to talk about the same resources
>> (that would have one IRI for the resource as it is on your server and
>> another IRI for the same resource as it is on my server?
>>
>> This is definitely a good step forward for the LD platform definition.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 10:24 AM, Martynas Jusevičius
>> <martynas@graphity.org> wrote:
>>> Hey all,
>>>
>>> we have submitted an extended abstract for the XML London 2016 conference:
>>> http://xmllondon.com
>>>
>>> We will be notified on the 7th of April whether it gets accepted. If
>>> it does, we will need to write the final paper. Fingers crossed :)
>>>
>>> The abstract goes like this:
>>>
>>> Linked Data Templates define the syntax and the semantics of a Linked
>>> Data processor which publishes and consumes RDF data over HTTP. The
>>> processor responds to Linked Data requests by interpreting a sitemap
>>> ontology as instructions to indicate how the request metadata maps to
>>> an operation on SPARQL service, and how to generate response body. The
>>> LDT vocabulary also provides capabilities to define hypermedia
>>> controls, container resources with paginated access, resource
>>> constructor templates, validation constraints and skolemization
>>> templates.
>>>
>>> You can find the whole document here:
>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uUIkSKQly-td7F9QjXS7QE-lzWL3ytGxDd5dzmvuO1c/edit?usp=sharing
>>>
>>> Feedback is very welcome. You can comment in the Google doc as well.
>>>
>>> We are currently working on the draft on the specification, expecting
>>> to make it public next month.
>>>
>>>
>>> Martynas
>>> graphityhq.com
>>>
>

Received on Thursday, 17 March 2016 19:03:07 UTC