W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > December 2005

Re: How will the semantic web emerge: SPARQL end point and $$

From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 19:21:06 +0100
Message-Id: <684FA2DA-4C8D-4563-BAE5-DBC990C2F37A@bblfish.net>
Cc: <tim.glover@bt.com>, <fugu13@mac.com>, <fmanola@acm.org>, <semantic-web@w3.org>
To: Joshua Allen <joshuaa@microsoft.com>


On 21 Dec 2005, at 19:08, Joshua Allen wrote:

>> worth looking at this. If I were Barnes and Noble of la FNAC I would
>> try this out, before Amazon gets there.
>
> This motivation only works if there is credible evidence that  
> Amazon is preparing to launch SPARQL endpoints, though.  And even  
> then, only if there is evidence that such endpoints would see broad  
> adoption.

Amazon as you point out below, has published web services, so that is  
a good reason to try to do better. Furthermore those services are  
more difficult to establish as you have to specify the query language  
as well as the xml format. With RDF and SPARQL most of these problems  
are already solved for you in a standard way. So life is a lot  
easier. You have a much more powerful query mechanism, a much cleaner  
semantics. No need to re-invent the wheel.

>> Once more groups get their SPARQL end points out, I forsee that major
>> players will wish to standardise on some ontologies to:
>
> I believe we have enough specific evidence to counter this  
> prediction already.  Amazon has already exposed its business data  
> in a variety of flavors:

Exactly. That proves the point that if you put data on the web that  
has value, people will use it whatever the obstacles are, as long as  
it the obstacles are not bigger than the time required to invest in  
accessing it. Amazon had to use RESTful web services, invent an XML  
format and a query language as at the time they put their service  
online SPARQL did not exist. All of this comes out  automatically  
from having a good ontology. The query mechanism is immediately  
defined, and the whole thing is self documenting.


>
> 1) Web services with loose contract (POX over HTTP)

Most successful for complex apps.

> 2) Intermediate format -- RSS using some simple, well-known extensions

most successful for very simple keeping up to date apps.

> 3) Web services using tighter schema (SOAP and WSDL)

Not successful. Too complicated. On the way to extinction.

> Can you guess the relative adoption of each style?  This is a  
> pattern we see played out across the industry.

So my point is that SPARQL will replace 1. It is RESTful enough and  
avoid having to invent a query language and an XML format.

Henry Story
http://bblfish.net/blog/
Received on Wednesday, 21 December 2005 18:21:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 22 February 2013 14:24:52 GMT