W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-hydra@w3.org > June 2014

Re: Reinventing Web applications

From: Ruben Verborgh <ruben.verborgh@ugent.be>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 05:47:54 +0200
Cc: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>, public-hydra@w3.org, public-declarative-apps@w3.org
Message-Id: <DF1782A6-0A5F-4873-AFED-DC12019E3B90@ugent.be>
To: (wrong string) Ĩius <martynas@graphity.org>
Hi Martynas,

>> ”server side": does it mean
>> internal things that are not visible from the outside,
>> or (an) external interfaces() offered by a server?
> About how a Linked Data server should translate requests and responses
> to and from a SPARQL server.
> The exact mapping is application-defined in RDF form, so it can be
> easily published alongside the main data.

So but… it's internal stuff then, i.e., not observable for the client.
Why would this need to be published?

> First we want to specify the standard way triplestore-based Linked
> Data servers work, as this goal is much more realistic in our view.

“triplestore-based" gives me the same feeling again;
this seems like something that is private to the server,
so I don't fully understand why this needs to be specified
rather than to be turned into a software framework.

> Regardless of the syntax, my
> agent still would not *automatically* know how to interact with the
> service based on these constraints.

Does declarative-apps do things for clients as well, or only servers?

>> In what sense are RDBMS Web architecture components?
>> It what sense are they obsolete?
> In the sense that relational DBs are still used by majority of Web
> applications and frameworks despite being defined decades before the Web.

That doesn't make them Web architecture components.
That's all internal stuff for the server that is not exposed.
It's not observable to a client; the Web happens between clients and servers.

> Object-relational mapping is also a popular component despite the
> obvious impedance mismatch [1].

Sure, but it's not the only way to deal with relational databases,
and again, not observable.

> RDF is a much more natural data model for the Web, given its built-in
> URIs, effortless merge operation, genericness etc.

Does that fact that a server *internally* works with RDF
make an observable difference for clients?

> Hmm.. yes and no :) It is about server-side components that have
> similar behavior such as support for pagination, accepting RDF input,
> ACL etc.

Aha, so… you're defining how clients can send RDF for input
and interpret it for ACL?
Are we talking about specific document types for input and ACL?

> Try to look at it as an analogy to XSLT processing.
> […]
> In this case, running the same declarative description, your
> Linked Data server would respond in the same way, regardless of the processor.

Ah okay. So you have some configuration file(s) for a server,
this is what you standardize, and then implementations bring this server to life?


Received on Monday, 23 June 2014 03:48:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 15:53:59 UTC