Re: Linked Data Templates paper for XML London 2016

LDT is a client-server architecture, where processor is the server,
and client uses hypermedia. However processor and client can built
into one node, which are like distributed Linked Data agents.

If I'm getting your workflow, I think this be accomplished with 2
requests. I've omitted the prefixes.

First POST to your own server:

POST http://patrick.org

_:sameAs a foaf:Document ;
  owl:sameAs <http://martynas.org/some-resource> .

which gives you a skolemized URI:

HTTP/1.1 200 OK

<http://patrick.org/7a6eb95f-5fe1-4e3f-baf5-3314ad366a7e> a foaf:Document ;
  owl:sameAs <http://martynas.org/some-resource> .

Then you can do a PUT to my http://martynas.org/some-resource with an
updated payload (with the extra triple) - or possibly only PATCH the
change, like this:

PATCH http://martynas.org/some-resource

<http://martynas.org/some-resource> owl:sameAs
<http://patrick.org/7a6eb95f-5fe1-4e3f-baf5-3314ad366a7e> .

Wouldn't that be more RESTful?

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 8:24 PM, Patrick Logan <patrickdlogan@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am thinking of something like...
>
> 1. You are running an LDT and have a resource at
> http://martynas.org/some-resource
>
> 2. I would like to enrich this data with my own data, using my own LDT.
>
> 3. I need my own IRI on my server to do so. I might do something like
> the following:
>     POST http://patrick.org/mintOwlSameAs?url=http://martynas.org/some-resource
>
> 4. This would return some local IRI I could use, like
> http://patrick.org/some-resource
>
> The data set on my LDT would have a triple like:
>
> <http://patrick.org/some-resource> owl:sameAs
> <http://martynas.org/some-resource>
>
> 5. A next step could be "federation" where my server might request
> that your server also add the owl:sameAs and provide my IRI.
>
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 12:02 PM, Martynas Jusevičius
> <martynas@graphity.org> wrote:
>> Patrick,
>>
>> great to have feedback :)
>>
>> Could it be that with "minting" you have "skolemization" in mind?
>> https://github.com/Graphity/graphity-processor/wiki/Data-input#blank-node-skolemization
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 7:28 PM, Patrick Logan <patrickdlogan@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Thinking about this just a little bit more... I wonder whether an
>>> additional operation could be useful...
>>>
>>> ...a POST to "mint" an IRI on the current LDT host that is an OWL
>>> "same as" for a given IRI. The original IRI may or may not be hosted
>>> on some other LDT system. The new IRI could then be used for local LDT
>>> operations about that resource.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 10:53 AM, Patrick Logan <patrickdlogan@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> I like the conceptual regularity of IRI's, pattern matching, and
>>>> templates and the HTTP verbs.
>>>>
>>>> My main question would be about the range of applications that can be
>>>> built with respect to using standard vocabularies. i.e. my
>>>> understanding is I am limited in applying the HTTP verbs only to
>>>> resources that share the IRI prefix with the linked data host. The
>>>> templates can refer to all the standard and common vocabularies, but I
>>>> cannot PUT or POST anything about a FOAF person for example, unless
>>>> that person has an IRI on that LDT host?
>>>>
>>>> As I said, it makes neat conceptual sense. Could it limit the range of
>>>> application expressiveness? Could there be "patterns of usage" that
>>>> would allow a kind of "federation of LDT hosts" that would support
>>>> federating your server and my server to talk about the same resources
>>>> (that would have one IRI for the resource as it is on your server and
>>>> another IRI for the same resource as it is on my server?
>>>>
>>>> This is definitely a good step forward for the LD platform definition.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 10:24 AM, Martynas Jusevičius
>>>> <martynas@graphity.org> wrote:
>>>>> Hey all,
>>>>>
>>>>> we have submitted an extended abstract for the XML London 2016 conference:
>>>>> http://xmllondon.com
>>>>>
>>>>> We will be notified on the 7th of April whether it gets accepted. If
>>>>> it does, we will need to write the final paper. Fingers crossed :)
>>>>>
>>>>> The abstract goes like this:
>>>>>
>>>>> Linked Data Templates define the syntax and the semantics of a Linked
>>>>> Data processor which publishes and consumes RDF data over HTTP. The
>>>>> processor responds to Linked Data requests by interpreting a sitemap
>>>>> ontology as instructions to indicate how the request metadata maps to
>>>>> an operation on SPARQL service, and how to generate response body. The
>>>>> LDT vocabulary also provides capabilities to define hypermedia
>>>>> controls, container resources with paginated access, resource
>>>>> constructor templates, validation constraints and skolemization
>>>>> templates.
>>>>>
>>>>> You can find the whole document here:
>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uUIkSKQly-td7F9QjXS7QE-lzWL3ytGxDd5dzmvuO1c/edit?usp=sharing
>>>>>
>>>>> Feedback is very welcome. You can comment in the Google doc as well.
>>>>>
>>>>> We are currently working on the draft on the specification, expecting
>>>>> to make it public next month.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Martynas
>>>>> graphityhq.com
>>>>>
>>>
>

Received on Thursday, 17 March 2016 20:02:50 UTC