W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > July 2014

Re: RDF Interface specification

From: Ruben Verborgh <ruben.verborgh@ugent.be>
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2014 12:16:46 +0200
Cc: Nathan Rixham <nathan@webr3.org>, Adrian Gschwend <ml-ktk@netlabs.org>, semantic-web@w3.org, bergi <bergi@axolotlfarm.org>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Message-Id: <0673A38C-5A62-444C-B12E-6B32BDDE0D9B@ugent.be>
To: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
Dear all,

Interesting discussion—here's my two cents.

> In *that* context, I'm trying to find a path towards a WG sometime next year that will help us move from data to APIs, tools, frameworks etc. Markus Lanthaler's work on Hydra is relevant, as is the Linked Data API, Linked Data Fragments and more.

> I'm looking for ways in which we could establish something like a Semantic Web (or Linked Data) Access Group - basically a group that defines a bucket full of stuff that means even arch anti-Linked Data people will find useful and attractive.

IMHO, we would have to emphasize the goal over the means;
i.e., remember that Linked Data and RDF are just tools to achieve something.

That goal, as I see it with Hydra and Linked Data Fragments,
and actually with RDF Interfaces as well,
is to be able to build a generation of clients that exhibit more intelligent behavior.

Right now, clients are hard-coded to perform specific tasks,
but the mentioned technologies / ideas could enable more flexible clients.
And Linked Data / Semantic Web technology would of course
be a very good facilitator for this. (But, perhaps not the only facilitator.)

The advantage of such a view is that “anti-Linked Data people"
or those unfamiliar with semantic technologies can see why it matters,
as we would share a common goal, and the technology is just a means to an end:
advanced clients and applications.

Best,

Ruben
Received on Thursday, 3 July 2014 10:17:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 07:42:52 UTC