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

RE: RDF query and Rules - my two cents

From: Danny Ayers <danny666@virgilio.it>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 11:15:55 +0100
To: "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, <www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org>
Cc: "Graham Klyne" <GK@ninebynine.org>, "Jim Hendler" <hendler@cs.umd.edu>, "Dan Brickley" <danbri@w3.org>, <www-rdf-rules@w3.org>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BKELLDAGKABIOCHDFDBPOEIOEIAA.danny666@virgilio.it>

I haven't fully digested your arguments yet, but would be grateful if you
could answer one quick question: can't the functionality of MGET be achieved
just using mimetypes?

If a client wants the description, it includes in the header:

Accept: application/rdf+xml-description

and does a HEAD, and if it sees

Content-Type: application/rdf+xml-description

it can carry on and GET the description, anything else is a failure.

If the client wants the full representation, it includes in the header:

Accept: application/rdf+xml

and so on as usual.

(a side issue that only just occurred to me was that there's nothing to stop
the results of an MGET being 500MB, but I'll save that for later ;-)

Cheers,
Danny.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-rdf-rules-request@w3.org
> [mailto:www-rdf-rules-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Patrick Stickler
> Sent: 20 November 2003 09:29
> To: ext www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org
> Cc: ext Danny Ayers; Graham Klyne; Jim Hendler; Dan Brickley;
> www-rdf-rules@w3.org; www-rdf-interest@w3.org
> Subject: Re: RDF query and Rules - my two cents
>
>
>
> > To allow the SW to function and scale as efficiently as the Web, there
> > needs to be the same degree of transparency in the requests for
> > descriptions
> > as there is in the requests for representations. For the web, all you
> > need to do to get a representation is use GET with a URI that is
> > meaningful
> > to the HTTP protocol. For the SW, all you need to do to get a
> > description
> > is to use MGET with a URI that is meaningful to the HTTP protocol.
> >
>
> I.e., to GET a representation, you don't GET a disk image, from which
> you can extract the single representation desired. Likewise, for the SW,
> you wouldn't GET an entire model/KB/graph from which you would extract
> the resource description desired.
>
> GET is resource-centric, for representations. MGET is also
> resource-centric,
> for descriptions.
>
> If folks want to GET entire models, fine, more power to them. But I
> think
> that most SW agents will be far more interested in obtaining knowledge
> about particular resources (terms, events, persons, servers, documents,
> etc.) and won't want (nor should have) to bother with models, databases,
> files, etc.
>
> The URI alone should be enough for the most fundamental form of SW
> activity,
> just as it is for the Web.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Patrick
>
>
> --
>
> Patrick Stickler
> Nokia, Finland
> patrick.stickler@nokia.com
>
Received on Thursday, 20 November 2003 05:24:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:03 GMT