W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-lld@w3.org > May 2011

RE: Relevant technology -- DVRQ?

From: Young,Jeff (OR) <jyoung@oclc.org>
Date: Tue, 3 May 2011 09:21:47 -0400
Message-ID: <52E301F960B30049ADEFBCCF1CCAEF590C51D711@OAEXCH4SERVER.oa.oclc.org>
To: "Antoine Isaac" <aisaac@few.vu.nl>, <public-lld@w3.org>, "public-xg-lld" <public-xg-lld@w3.org>
Antoine,

As you suggested, I changed "URL" to "http URI" and also added a link to
Wikipedia on the topic of "rewrite engine". I used "http URI" instead of
"HTTP URI" because I think it helps draw a distinction between http as a
URI scheme <http://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes.html> vs. HTTP
as an Internet protocol <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616>. I don't
think W3C documents are consistent about this, but I can at least
justify it with this reference:

http://www.w3.org/TR/uri-clarification/#contemporary

"An http URI is a URL."

I also added "such as Drupal" with the link you suggested.

Thanks!

Jeff

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-xg-lld-request@w3.org [mailto:public-xg-lld-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Antoine Isaac
> Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 4:30 AM
> To: public-lld@w3.org; public-xg-lld
> Subject: Re: Relevant technology -- DVRQ?
> 
> Hi Ed, Jeff,
> 
> Indeed great stuff, thanks a lot!
> 
> My main comments is about the use of "URL" in the last section, as in
> "Linked Data's focus on naming resources with URLs". It's likely to
> convince readers that the (web) architecture remains the same, which
is
> good. But it may confuse the less technically savvy people who would
> bump into the section by chance, and wonder why "URI" is not appearing
> anymore--most of the Linked Data-related prose uses URI.
> Could "HTTP URI" achieve a kind of balance between the two concerns
> here?
> 
> Much more minor, about the CMS system section: is
> http://drupal.org/node/1089804 is a core reference here?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Antoine
> 
> 
> > Those are great additions. Thanks Ed.
> >
> > I know I should get involved with Grail open-source development to
> help
> > upgrade their default scaffold to produce Linked Data, but I
probably
> > won't find the time. :-(
> >
> > Jeff
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: public-lld-request@w3.org [mailto:public-lld-request@w3.org]
> On
> >> Behalf Of Ed Summers
> >> Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 8:48 AM
> >> To: public-xg-lld; public-lld
> >> Subject: Re: Relevant technology -- DVRQ?
> >>
> >> Based on that conversation we had in the last telecon I added a
> >> section for Web Application Frameworks and Content Management
> Systems
> >> to the Draft Relevant Technologies wiki page [1].
> >>
> >> Comments, feedback and edits welcome :-)
> >>
> >> //Ed
> >>
> >> [1]
> >>
> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Draft_Relevant_Technologies
> >>
> >> On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 11:21 AM, Young,Jeff (OR)<jyoung@oclc.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>> During the call and again below, Ed mentioned an "ah-ha" moment
> when
> >> he
> >>> realized Web scaffolding frameworks like Rails, Drupal, DJango,
> etc.
> >>> could be used to publish Linked Data. I had a similar "ah-ha"
> moment
> >>> (Grails in my case). At least in the case of Grails, the domain
> > model
> >> is
> >>> implemented directly using object-oriented programming classes,
and
> >> the
> >>> Web create, read, update, and delete (CRUD) functions are supplied
> >>> automatically by a model-neutral controller "scaffold".
Out-of-the-
> >> box,
> >>> Grails automatically maps these object-oriented classes to a
> >> relational
> >>> database, but there are abstractions in the framework for other
> > types
> >> of
> >>> physical stores. Also, in the case of Grails at least, this
> >>> domain-neutral scaffold can be tweaked to automatically support
> >> Linked
> >>> Data URIs and the production of RDF as well as an ontology. I
would
> >> be
> >>> happy to turn over my experiments if someone wants a closer look.
> >>>
> >>> Ultimately, though, I got frustrated with this type of solution
> >> because
> >>> it requires a programmer to implement what should possible to
> > achieve
> >> in
> >>> the hands of a domain-expert directly. D2RQ seems like a much more
> >>> promising solution in this regard, although I will admit there are
> >> still
> >>> gaps to fill to catch up with the create, update, and delete
> > features
> >> of
> >>> scaffolding frameworks.
> >>>
> >>> Jeff
> >>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: public-xg-lld-request@w3.org [mailto:public-xg-lld-
> >>>> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Ed Summers
> >>>> Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 6:20 AM
> >>>> To: Antoine Isaac
> >>>> Cc: public-xg-lld
> >>>> Subject: Re: Relevant technology -- DVRQ?
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi Antoine,
> >>>>
> >>>> I think Jeff was talking about the d2r server [1], which has a
> >>>> framework component called d2rq? In the cold light of day I'm
> still
> >>>> wondering if it might be worthwhile for the Relevant Technologies
> >>>> section [2] to mention how web frameworks (rails, drupal, django,
> >> etc)
> >>>> and also RDFa are low barrier options for publishing Linked Data.
> >>>>
> >>>> //Ed
> >>>>
> >>>> [1] http://www4.wiwiss.fu-berlin.de/bizer/d2r-server/
> >>>> [2]
> >>>>
> >>
> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Draft_Relevant_Technologies
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 3 May 2011 13:22:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 May 2011 13:22:26 GMT