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

Re: RDF Interface specification

From: Jakub Kotowski <jakub@kotowski.cz>
Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2014 10:35:38 +0100
Message-ID: <53B523EA.7090207@kotowski.cz>
To: semantic-web@w3.org
Hello everyone,

maybe a stupid question but

" The RDF Interfaces Specification defines a set of standardized
interfaces for working with RDF data in a programming environment."

so I guess it should be somehow in line with some of the most
wide-spread APIs such as OpenRDF Sesame and Jena?

Is that the case or why not?

Thanks,

Jakub


On 03/07/14 09:21, Phil Archer wrote:
> Adrian, everyone
>
> Thanks very much for this. As ever, if we can help we will. The barrier 
> to setting up a chartered WG (i.e. on that can create formal standards) 
> is pretty high, but (I hope) not insurmountable. In essence we need to 
> be sure that sufficient members are committed to participating in the WG 
> and that the spec will be implemented. That means we need:
>
> - member support (membership counts);
> - implementation capacity.
>
> Both of which flow from the demands of multiple stakeholders.
>
> Now... RDF Interfaces looks like it might be in scope for something I'm 
> trying to cook up. The Data Activity is all about bridging technological 
> communities, making sure that, for example, non-SemWeb people (I know 
> it's hard to believe but there are such people ) can benefit from 
> semantics. 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.
>
> So perhaps you can help me to help you.
>
> Leaving aside the fact that we're stretched to breaking point in terms 
> of staff availability ... 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. Something 
> that might bring SemWeb closer to Robin Berjon's vision 
> (http://berjon.com/web-2024/). I don't agree with his statements about 
> RDF, of course, but he's far from alone in his thinking.
>
> Do you think that might be worth pursuing? And, if so, would RDF 
> Interfaces fit within that??
>
> Comments, positive or negative, all welcome.
>
> Phil.
>
Received on Thursday, 3 July 2014 13:35:14 UTC

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