- From: Cory Casanave <cory-c@modeldriven.com>
- Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 15:10:07 -0400
- To: "Erik Wilde" <dret@berkeley.edu>, <public-egov-ig@w3.org>
- Cc: "Richard Cyganiak" <richard@cyganiak.de>
Erik, Sounds like some convergence! Re: we should look at services [cbc] Certainly we should! We need both generic services for query/CRUD on data (like RDF or XML) as well as purpose specific services that are computationally or transactional oriented. Re: my guess is that you won't give the world SPARQL access to your RDF data [cbc] Wrong guess for our concerns and also those of open government. We absolutely need a query across "configurations" of the internet data model (whatever it is). That is THE prime motivation. Should such mechanisms have access restrictions? sure, and you can use most of those in place. However there is a vast amount of information that is either fully open or can be "closed" using course grain mechanisms that we already have for any web resource. So we can use SPARQL for these more open or granular resources until finer grain rights management is better defined. If you try and define point services for every data path need you will be making such services forever. If you are suggesting we should define a custom service for each access into generic data, I would strongly disagree. Note that I am a strong supporter of SOA, I authored much of the SoaML modeling specification, but like any paradigm, don't see it is needed everywhere. Query and even CRUD on internet data can and should be more generic and used by services as needed. If you try and define point services for every data path need you will be making such services forever. -Cory -----Original Message----- From: Erik Wilde [mailto:dret@berkeley.edu] Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2010 2:54 PM To: Cory Casanave; public-egov-ig@w3.org Cc: Richard Cyganiak Subject: Re: [dcat] Tomorrow's dcat Agenda hello. > [cbc] All I can tell you is we and many others use REST interfaces to > RDF graphs and it works very well (including SPARQL at the same > endpoint) - REST & RDF are orthogonal just like XML and REST are > orthogonal. yes, REST and RDF are orthogonal. using RDF/semweb does not solve the problems that REST solves, such as telling me where to go if i want to do things, and what i can do there. (this is where quite a bit of "discovery" research work has been done in the semweb community.) it also is the reason why i was pointing out that we should look at services, too, because regardless of whether egov data is exposed as XML or JSON or RDF or CSV, it will be important to know what services you can use, i.e. where to go, and how to interact with those services, such as how you can for example update or annotate data. and in the same way as you don't give the world SQL access to your relational data, my guess is that you won't give the world SPARQL access to your RDF data; the main reasons being that you want to be able to enforce constraints, exercise access control, control optimized access paths, and you want the services to be independent of implementation details. cheers, dret.
Received on Thursday, 22 April 2010 19:10:34 UTC