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

RE: Put/Get - RDF Net API

From: Graham Moore <moore@ontopia.net>
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 08:15:24 +0100
To: "'Danny Ayers'" <danny666@virgilio.it>, "'Jim Hendler'" <hendler@cs.umd.edu>, "'Joshua Allen'" <joshuaa@microsoft.com>, "'Patrick Stickler (NMP-MSW/Tampere)'" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Cc: "'Graham Klyne'" <GK@ninebynine.org>, "'Dan Brickley'" <danbri@w3.org>, <www-rdf-rules@w3.org>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Message-Id: <E1AOXV5-0007yf-00@sandbox.ontopia.net>


Hi Danny, 

It would be great to hear your thoughts on the RDF Net API[1] submission.
Especially in comparison to the URIQA work. Also, do you see things in the
RDF Net API as something that wouldn't work well with existing web
architecture? 

Cheers

Graham.

1. http://www.w3.org/Submission/2003/SUBM-rdf-netapi-20031002/

----------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Moore, Ontopian            moore@ontopia.net
GSM: +47 926 82 437           http://www.ontopia.net


-----Original Message-----
From: www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org
[mailto:www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Danny Ayers
Sent: 21 November 2003 10:41
To: Jim Hendler; Joshua Allen; Patrick Stickler (NMP-MSW/Tampere)
Cc: Graham Klyne; Dan Brickley; www-rdf-rules@w3.org;
www-rdf-interest@w3.org



> >>   But despite the fact that we
> >>  > don't even have the slightest freekin' semblance of a consistent  
> >> > data-access architecture,
> >>
> >>  We have the web.
> >
> >PUT/GET are a data-access architecture for documents, period.  RDF is 
> >not a document data model; it's a graph data model.  If you want to 
> >shim a document data model on top of your graph storage, then fine -- 
> >but you better figure out how to interact with your graph storage 
> >first.  Until you have a consistent way of accessing your graph data 
> >model, you're going to have a post-babel chaos.
>
>
> Sorry, just trying to change the name on this thread now that it no 
> longer is really related to the issue of whether to form WGs at this 
> time and if so which ones...

Fair enough. Re. your original post, I agree entirely with your proposal,
especially:

"1 - I think there is a clear and present need in the RDF community for a
way to essentially request a set of triples from a remote store
-- essentially an RDF remote access API."

Where PUT/GET (and POST, DELETE) figure in this are as the existing web's
network API. I would suggest that a simple application of this to the RDF
model would yield the required remote access API. Patrick and I have been
arguing over implementation, but I believe that the functionality offered by
URIQA [1] is just the kind of thing we should be aiming for in the first
instance.

There is a need for a standardization of sophisticated, fine-grained access
to graph models, but I think as Jim was proposing, this isn't the immediate
requirement.

On Joshua's point, PUT/GET etc are a data access architecture for
representation of resources on the web. True, it's currently used primarily
with documents, but if the system is intended to use the web then it makes
sense to leverage what we've already got. The basic difference between
Joshua's and my position here is that I don't think the querying of RDF
models on the web should be orthogonal to the web architecture.

The reason I picked up on this thread is that I believe there is a danger
that an approach might be taken that doesn't mesh well with the existing
web: SQL-like queries could be posted around in SOAP packets, but this would
be largely opaque to the rest (or REST) of the web. Patrick's approach is in
a different direction, one which certainly does take into account the
existing web, I'm just not convinced there isn't something closer.

Cheers,
Danny.

[1] http://sw.nokia.com/uriqa/URIQA.html
Received on Tuesday, 25 November 2003 02:15:15 GMT

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