W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdfa-wg@w3.org > April 2011

Re: API musings....

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 10:46:09 +0200
Cc: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, Nathan Rixham <nathan@webr3.org>, W3C RDFWA WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1CB6DFCF-D039-41A7-8BC8-DAAE9D1D4F61@w3.org>
To: Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com>

On Apr 14, 2011, at 10:39 , Niklas Lindström wrote:

> Hi Ivan!
> 
> I had the exact same thoughts when I pondered adapting a utility API
> for RDF I've written (in java). The 2:nd level is becoming a quite
> nice resource-oriented API suitable for general RDF work.
> 
> It might be the case that level 1 and 2 could be merged of course.

Technically, of course, and I believe it is more or less what is happening in the current document. My worry is about _presenting_ these to various communities; some part of the community would want to get/see level 2 only and level 1 would just mess them up...

I.


> On
> the other hand, level 2 might be promising as an upper API layer which
> can be adapted to different underlying, existing RDF API:s (Jena,
> Sesame, ARC, Redland, RDFLib and so on). (That's what I'm looking at
> for the mentioned java utility.)
> 
> (I also have some suggestions for Projection which I have yet to write
> up as feedback to the WG. I'll send that as soon as I can.)
> 
> Best regards,
> Niklas
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 9:33 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
>> Something that began to crystallize to me yesterday during and after the RDF F2F... These are just vague ideas that I decided to jot down for further discussion.
>> 
>> Our current setup and division is that we have two layers: the RDFa API and the RDF API. Logically, the former sits on the top of the latter (forget about the fact that we may want to hide this to some user community, that is an editorial detail).
>> 
>> However... I wonder whether it may not be better, again mostly editorially, to have a three tier division instead of two. Yes, I know, but bear with me... Here is what I thought:
>> 
>> 1. Lowest level triple store API. Things like interfaces to triples, get them directly, store them, etc.
>> 2. Higher level RDF API: getSubjects(optional property, optional value) et al, getProperties(optional subject) et al, Projections, set mapping, query
>> 3. RDFa API: document.getElementsByType(type) etc, ie, all DOM related stuffs
>> 
>> (obviously, Level #3 has access to Level #2 and that one to Level #1, just as today)
>> 
>> Level #1 is for RDF heads. They know what they want, they want to get access to the bare bones. Level #2 is interesting. What it does is to separate from the current RDFa API what is not RDFa specific, but keeps the simplicity level that is attractive for Javascript, non-RDF Web Application Developers. Level #3 is, obviously, the RDFa specific additions.
>> 
>> Why? The discussion yesterday at the F2F made one thing clear(er) to me: Javascript developers will not want to get access to, say, DBPedia data as it stands today. Regardless on whether that data is in Turtle or even in JSON. However, if what they see is level #2, so to say, then that might work out well...
>> 
>> As I said, just musings...
>> 
>> Ivan
>> 
>> 
>> ----
>> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
>> mobile: +31-641044153
>> PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
>> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 


----
Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf







Received on Thursday, 14 April 2011 08:45:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:19:51 UTC