Re: LLD Web Services

In message <20110509102059.157827xtf8ezcf3v@kcoyle.net>, Karen Coyle 
<kcoyle@kcoyle.net> writes
>It reads ok to me. I want to point out that this paragraph:
>
>"However web developers are sometimes turned off Semantic Web (Linked 
>Data) technologies because they feel like they would need to throw 
>away their current application, to swap their database for a 
>triplestore, and their database query language for SPARQL. This is 
>simply not the case, since RDF serializations can be generated on the 
>fly just as web application frameworks do fo HTML, XML and JSON 
>representations. The use of http URIs to identify and link together 
>resources in RDF's data model make it a natural choice for serializing 
>and sharing entity state in a database neutral way--which has 
>traditionally been of great interest to cultural heritage 
>organizations and the digital preservation community. "
>
>totally parallels a discussion we just had in the LLD recommendations 
>group, and which perhaps should also be included in the benefits area. 
>Our discussion in LLD-R was that we should emphasize what some library 
>practices, like authority control and controlled terms, and LD with 
>URIs have in common -- for identification, for sharing (and the 
>subsequent efficiencies), and for re-use. If we can present those 
>concepts as being a new way to do what libraries already have in their 
>metadata toolkit, we make it much less foreign and frightening.

In that context, has the Linked Data API work [1] been mentioned yet? 
While it is primarily designed to put a friendlier REST-style face on a 
triple store, it can equally be used as a design pattern for creating 
URI-based interfaces to non-triple-stores.

Richard

[1] http://code.google.com/p/linked-data-api/
-- 
Richard Light

Received on Monday, 9 May 2011 17:35:02 UTC