Re: "Basic profile" terminology ?

hello steve.

On 2012-07-09 14:23 , "Steve K Speicher" <sspeiche@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>In Linked Data terms, as defined by TBL [1], you don't have a "service"
>model or only human understandable media types...

media types are in no way targeted at or limited to human consumers; they
encode a data as well as an interaction model for a given problem domain.

>you have data, 
>addressable and manipulated by some standards.  This enables a broad
>class 
>of applications to operate on a data model, with meaning and
>relationships, that works for the web, scales to the web and works for
>the 
>enterprise (within the firewall, outside or both).  HTTP + RDF + some
>rules can give you that and why the workshop attendees [2] wanted to
>address with this WG (me being one of them).  Sometimes it does take
>humans to understand the semantics of the ontologies used within the data
>models.
>I believe you are talking at a level that is out of scope for this WG by
>talking at the "service" layer.  The example you reference seem to enable
>only a single pairing (or limited pairing) of client application to
>server 
>applications for specific media type interaction.  What you are
>describing 
>is not at all what was discussed at the workshop and why I'm
>participating 
>in this WG for IBM.  Perhaps there is value in such an effort and perhaps
>worthy of its own workshop to gauge interest.

i'd be really curious whether you're proposing to take pure data-level
interactions to open scenarios where you have to deal with badly
implemented and adversarial clients. the service level i am talking about
is in no way specific to REST, it's simply what many different areas of
communication and data management systems discovered they need for
robustness and protection. 3-tier architectures are one example for that
kind of architecture. if you propose that linked data should only and
exclusively handle data manipulation, why do you think this is different
from the areas where (some variation) of the 3-tier architecture
eventually showed up in large-scale systems and deployments?

>I think it would be best to debate whether we need the term "RESTful" in
>our charter as it is now a days more of a buzz word and lacks any
>normative status at W3C.  This seems to be leading to some confusion but
>it is very clear to me that RDF is not up for debate based on its
>normative status and clear presence in the charter.

i am definitely coming to this group with a long history and some
expectations when i hear REST, and one of them is the fact that S is for
state, meaning that REST is not about implementing CRUD on the HTTP level.
if that's the actual goal this group wants to pursue, we should definitely
remove REST from the charter, so that we are not contributing to the
confusing and often misleading ways in which people are talking about REST
these days. REST is not a standard, but it is fairly well-defined, and one
of the main goals is to allow loose coupling by not designing RESTful
systems in a way where the interactions are based on specifics of the data
model used in the service implementations.

cheers,

dret.

Received on Monday, 9 July 2012 13:17:58 UTC