W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-dwbp-wg@w3.org > December 2015

Re: Fwd: Best Practice 26.docx

From: Annette Greiner <amgreiner@lbl.gov>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 13:23:39 -0800
To: public-dwbp-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <566F335B.9000900@lbl.gov>
Peter,
Thanks for working to improve this.

While I like the idea of explaining what an API is for those who may be 
less familiar, we should be careful about how we define it. The main 
alternatives to an API for web developers are downloads and scraping, 
which are actually pretty simple but tedious approaches. I think the 
value of an API for web development is not so much a matter of greater 
simplicity but in having actual programmatic access, or hooks into the 
data. The point is that an API is designed to explicitly enable 
programming, whereas reusing without that requires grabbing more than 
you want and munging the data. The last sentence of the first paragraph 
suggests that REST is the only way to make an API, which is not the 
case. Let's leave that argument out of this BP, as it's handled elsewhere.

The second paragraph now reiterates the simplicity concept, which I 
don't think is accurate or particularly helpful. As for protecting 
against resource-intensive subsetting, I'm not sure what you mean. The 
alternatives to using an API are not about subsetting and are not 
particularly resource intensive; subsetting is actually a virtue of 
using an API, because it allows one to download only the data needed 
(something I've been pushing for a BP about for a long time, BTW). 
Regarding other transport protocols than HTTP, I'm not sure what that 
has to do with the intended outcome.

As for the third paragraph, again, I don't think we should get into the 
how-to-implement-REST discussion here. There is another BP for that. 
Also, the suggestion that creating a web API for relational data is 
"elementary programming" whereas RDF "can be provided with more 
sophisticated APIs" strikes me as potentially a bit insulting to devs 
who work with relational data.

I'm curious what the goal of this reworking was. Perhaps we can find 
other ways to address the underlying issues.
-Annette

On 12/11/15 7:08 AM, Phil Archer wrote:
> This should be in the mail archive (Peter used an alternative e-mail 
> address which is why it bounced)
>
>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject: Best Practice 26.docx
> Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 14:43:55 +0000
> From: Peter.Winstanley@gov.scot
> To: public-dwbp-wg@w3.org
> CC: phila@w3.org, laufer@globo.com
>
>
>
> I have tried make some steps to improve the BP #26 from 
> http://w3c.github.io/dwbp/bp.html#useanAPI
>
> Hope it is a helpful move.  It you think the direction is right then 
> let me know and I'll complete.
>
> Peter
>
>
> **********************************************************************
> This e-mail (and any files or other attachments transmitted with it) 
> is intended solely for the attention of the addressee(s). Unauthorised 
> use, disclosure, storage, copying or distribution of any part of this 
> e-mail is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient please 
> destroy the email, remove any copies from your system and inform the 
> sender immediately by return.
>
> Communications with the Scottish Government may be monitored or 
> recorded in order to secure the effective operation of the system and 
> for other lawful purposes. The views or opinions contained within this 
> e-mail may not necessarily reflect those of the Scottish Government.
>
>
> Tha am post-d seo (agus faidhle neo ceanglan  còmhla ris) dhan neach 
> neo luchd-ainmichte a-mhà in. Chan eil e ceadaichte a chleachdadh ann 
> an dòigh sam bith, a’ toirt a-steach còraichean, foillseachadh neo 
> sgaoileadh,  gun chead. Ma ’s e is gun d’fhuair sibh seo le 
> gun fhiosd’, bu choir cur às dhan phost-d agus lethbhreac sam bith 
> air an t-siostam agaibh, leig fios chun  neach a sgaoil am post-d  gun 
> dà il.
>
> Dh’fhaodadh gum bi teachdaireachd sam bith bho Riaghaltas na h-Alba 
> air a chlà radh neo air a sgrùdadh airson dearbhadh gu bheil an 
> siostam ag obair gu h-èifeachdach neo airson adhbhar laghail 
> eile. Dh’fhaodadh nach  eil beachdan anns a’ phost-d seo co-ionann 
> ri beachdan Riaghaltas na h-Alba.
> **********************************************************************
>
>
>
> The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government 
> Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied by Vodafone in 
> partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) 
> This email has been certified virus free.
> Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored 
> and/or recorded for legal purposes.
>
>
>

-- 
Annette Greiner
NERSC Data and Analytics Services
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
Received on Monday, 14 December 2015 21:24:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 14 December 2015 21:24:41 UTC