W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > May 2003

RE: URIQA!

From: Leo Sauermann <leo@ist.org>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 02:24:24 +0200
To: "'Piotr Kaminski'" <piotr@ideanest.com>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>, <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Message-ID: <001301c31ff8$7f667f40$e4446e50@ZION>

looks like a nice implementation !
(tomcat / jena2)

> Why restrict all replies to a concise bounded description?  
> If an agent is
> interested in information "around" a resource, right now it 
> would have to
> issue a (potentially large) number of individual requests.  Adding an
> optional "expansion depth" parameter to the GET query would 
> provide a simple
> way to grab information in bigger chunks.  

hm, I know the "depth" value from 
http://www.musicbrainz.org/MM/index.html

they have many APIs that are based on it:
http://www.musicbrainz.org/products/client/download.html

stick to the words of the wise man:
"if you enter a depth of 10, you will get all data of the world. please
wait..."
serious: you could connect every person in 6 steps, so with data it
could be the same.

And 2:

I assume you know Sesame and its web access model, if not:
http://sesame.aidministrator.nl/publications/users/ch07s02.html
they used simple query fields. this has advantages and problems,
so I ask a "dumb" question to hear your ideas:

What do you think of, who should use the Sesame model and who the URIQA
model ?


(whoa, this is groovy feeling, seeing a standard in its baby stage)

greetings
Leo Sauermann
Vienna, Austria
Received on Wednesday, 21 May 2003 20:24:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:59 GMT