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

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

From: Joshua Allen <joshuaa@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 10:26:58 -0800
Message-ID: <0E36FD96D96FCA4AA8E8F2D199320E520764FC32@RED-MSG-43.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Henry Story" <henry.story@bblfish.net>
Cc: <tim.glover@bt.com>, <fugu13@mac.com>, <fmanola@acm.org>, <semantic-web@w3.org>
I would draw exactly the opposite conclusion from the real-world data.  However, I don't have any particular bias or religion to boost, so my opinion may be unanchored.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Henry Story [mailto:henry.story@bblfish.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 10:21 AM
> To: Joshua Allen
> Cc: tim.glover@bt.com; fugu13@mac.com; fmanola@acm.org; semantic-
> web@w3.org
> Subject: Re: How will the semantic web emerge: SPARQL end point and $$€€
> 
> 
> 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 18:27:17 GMT

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