W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-egov-ig@w3.org > April 2010

RE: [dcat] Tomorrow's dcat Agenda

From: Cory Casanave <cory-c@modeldriven.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 15:10:07 -0400
Message-ID: <4F65F8D37DEBFC459F5A7228E5052044A03DF1@DATCENTRALSRV.datcentral.local>
To: "Erik Wilde" <dret@berkeley.edu>, <public-egov-ig@w3.org>
Cc: "Richard Cyganiak" <richard@cyganiak.de>
Erik,
Sounds like some convergence!
Re: we should look at services

[cbc] Certainly we should!  We need both generic services for query/CRUD
on data (like RDF or XML) as well as purpose specific services that are
computationally or transactional oriented.

Re: my guess is that you won't give the world SPARQL access to your RDF
data

[cbc] Wrong guess for our concerns and also those of open government.
We absolutely need a query across "configurations" of the internet data
model (whatever it is).  That is THE prime motivation.  Should such
mechanisms have access restrictions? sure, and you can use most of those
in place.  However there is a vast amount of information that is either
fully open or can be "closed" using course grain mechanisms that we
already have for any web resource.  So we can use SPARQL for these more
open or granular resources until finer grain rights management is better
defined.  If you try and define point services for every data path need
you will be making such services forever.

If you are suggesting we should define a custom service for each access
into generic data, I would strongly disagree.  Note that I am a strong
supporter of SOA, I authored much of the SoaML modeling specification,
but like any paradigm, don't see it is needed everywhere.  Query and
even CRUD on internet data can and should be more generic and used by
services as needed.  If you try and define point services for every data
path need you will be making such services forever.

-Cory

-----Original Message-----
From: Erik Wilde [mailto:dret@berkeley.edu] 
Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2010 2:54 PM
To: Cory Casanave; public-egov-ig@w3.org
Cc: Richard Cyganiak
Subject: Re: [dcat] Tomorrow's dcat Agenda

hello.

> [cbc] All I can tell you is we and many others use REST interfaces to
> RDF graphs and it works very well (including SPARQL at the same
> endpoint) - REST & RDF are orthogonal just like XML and REST are
> orthogonal.

yes, REST and RDF are orthogonal. using RDF/semweb does not solve the 
problems that REST solves, such as telling me where to go if i want to 
do things, and what i can do there. (this is where quite a bit of 
"discovery" research work has been done in the semweb community.) it 
also is the reason why i was pointing out that we should look at 
services, too, because regardless of whether egov data is exposed as XML

or JSON or RDF or CSV, it will be important to know what services you 
can use, i.e. where to go, and how to interact with those services, such

as how you can for example update or annotate data. and in the same way 
as you don't give the world SQL access to your relational data, my guess

is that you won't give the world SPARQL access to your RDF data; the 
main reasons being that you want to be able to enforce constraints, 
exercise access control, control optimized access paths, and you want 
the services to be independent of implementation details.

cheers,

dret.
Received on Thursday, 22 April 2010 19:10:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 22 April 2010 19:10:35 GMT