- From: Ivan Mikhailov <imikhailov@openlinksw.com>
- Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 18:16:49 +0600
- To: Manos Batsis <manos_lists@geekologue.com>
- Cc: Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>, Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
Manos,
I guess that URIQA is dead. Unfortunately. I liked it. I've even
implemented it in OpenLink Virtuoso but nobody used it. It was so unused
that we even lack interoperability tests for MGET/MPUT --- there were no
counterparts to interop.
The idea of CBD is not popular, too. But I've found that at least some
people remember the acronym, and I've got even an enhancement request
for configurable output of SPARQL DESCRIBE statement, to make it
possible send a DESCRIBE ?x where {...} request with some special
configuration preamble and get CBDs of all appropriate bindings of ?x.
I don't know any good replacement for URIQA.
Best Regards,
Ivan Mikhailov
OpenLink Software
http://virtuoso.openlinksw.com
On Tue, 2009-01-27 at 12:36 +0200, Manos Batsis wrote:
>
>
> Danny Ayers wrote:
> > i.e. maximally exploiting HTTP
>
>
> Ah, nailed. It's too bad I have fallen behind regarding the state of the
> art, but the most horizontally useful idea I've ever stumbled upon re
> semweb was CBD [1] plus URIQA [2]. Essentially CBD defined graph limits
> (what we do with, e.g., lazy collection loading in the object-relational
> world). URIQA was a fitting HTTP extension anyone could implement to
> acquire/exchange/CRUD those graphs.
>
> So, what is today's equivalent of those two?
>
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/Submission/CBD/
> [2] http://sw.nokia.com/uriqa/URIQA.html
>
> Cheers,
>
> Manos
>
Received on Tuesday, 27 January 2009 12:17:34 UTC