RE: LLD Web Services

I added Kevin and Joachim's text to the Draft Relevant Technologies page
and tweaked it a bit. I'm afraid I made it less readable, but hopefully
tied up a few loose ends in exchange. If the changes are too radical, I
can back them out. 

Suggestions and help for making the text readable again would be very
welcome. Also, a few questions/issues popped out that could use some
broader opinions. They appear in brackets in the text:

http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Draft_Relevant_Technologies#We
b_Services_for_Library_Linked_Data

Jeff

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-lld-request@w3.org [mailto:public-lld-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Ford, Kevin
> Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2011 9:43 AM
> To: public-lld
> Subject: LLD Web Services
> 
> Dear All,
> 
> Joachim contacted me and asked, based on discussion during a telecon,
> if I could trim the Web Services text he and I authored for inclusion
> into the final report.  After reviewing the minutes of that telecon, I
> am operating under the assumption that it is to go in the Relevant
> Technologies section of the report (or, at least what appears to be
the
> current draft) [1].  I hope so: I've tried to tailor it to that
> section.  I see it going after "Linked Data front-ends to existing
data
> stores" and before "OWL and supporting tools".  I've halved the text
> (at least).  I'm having a devil of a time signing in to the wiki
> currently, so I've pasted it below.  If someone wants to paste it into
> the document, that would be great.
> 
> Warmly,
> 
> Kevin
> 
> [1]
> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Draft_Relevant_Technologies
> 
> 
> Web Services for LLD
> 
> Many LD implementations, for a variety of reasons, can not or have not
> provided SPARQL endpoints (or bulk downloads).  Some LD
implementations
> might not use a triplestore in the back-end, which is seen as a
natural
> precursor for a SPARQL endpoint; for others, security or robustness
> considerations preclude such a feature in production use.  Not
offering
> these options can hinder further resource discovery.  Furthermore, it
> may also not be feasible to layer a Linked Data front-end on to an
> existing back-end.
> 
> Therefore LLD efforts should encourage the development of LD Web
> Services to facilitate greater access to the data offered by a LD
> Implementation.  Web Services can be offered in the absence of a
SPARQL
> endpoint or in conjunction with one.   Web Services should be fully
> documented.
> 
> A few LD implementations have endeavored to implement Web Services to
> enhance discovery and use of resources, often by providing some form
of
> an application programming interface (API).  Agrovoc and STW provide
an
> API to discover resources based on relationships in the data, among
> many more web services.  VIAF, LC's ID, and STW offer autosuggest
> services for resources, delivering JSON responses ready for
consumption
> in AJAX browser applications.  Agrovoc and STITCH/CATCH include
support
> for pure RDF responses.  Some services provide full-fledged SOAP APIs,
> while others support a REST approach.
> 
> By focusing on method parameters and response formats to provide
> enhanced discovery, LD Web Services diminish, if not eliminate, the
> requirement that data be stored in a triplestore.  And, because web
> service APIs are common, web services can lower the barrier to entry.
> 
>

Received on Monday, 9 May 2011 16:29:37 UTC