W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ldp@w3.org > November 2012

Format for service descriptions

From: Graham Klyne <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 11:56:13 +0000
Message-ID: <50AB6FDD.6000200@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
To: LDP <public-ldp@w3.org>, W3C provenance WG <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
CC: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Dear LDP'ers,

TL;DR:
does the LDP group have consensus on a preferred format for REST "service 
descriptions" or "API home pages"?

...

In recent discussions with Ivan, and also with my PROV-AQ co-editor, it has been 
suggested that the W3CF Provenance WG coordinate our PROV-AQ (access and query) 
design work with you concerning the definition of a REST API for accessing 
information about a linked data resource -- in our case, provenance information.

We have defined a simple service API for accessing provenance information and, 
following REST HATEOS principles and somewhat following the lead of AtomPub, 
used the notion of a service description for providing the entry point for 
accessing services as web resources.  See:

 
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/tip/paq/prov-aq.html#provenance-service-description

In its current incarnation, the service description is specified to be RDF (in 
any of its serializations), mainly because that is (a) the least effort to 
specifiy, and (b) seems to be consistent with general use of RDF in a linked 
data environment.

But it has been suggested that an easier-to-use format (e.g. JSON) might be more 
appropriate.  (I note here Mark Nottingham's work to define a JSON format for 
API "home pages": http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-json-home)

So my question is:  is there within the LDP group a consensus on a format to 
support navigation to information about a linked data resource?

#g
Received on Tuesday, 20 November 2012 11:59:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 20 November 2012 11:59:14 GMT