- From: Young,Jeff (OR) <jyoung@oclc.org>
- Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 11:15:00 -0400
- To: "Neubert Joachim" <J.Neubert@zbw.eu>, "Ford, Kevin" <kefo@loc.gov>, <public-lld@w3.org>
Joachim, These are great points and your changes look good. Thanks! Jeff > -----Original Message----- > From: Neubert Joachim [mailto:J.Neubert@zbw.eu] > Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 11:05 AM > To: Young,Jeff (OR); Ford, Kevin; public-lld@w3.org > Subject: AW: LLD Web Services > > Hi Jeff, > > Thanks for adding and tweaking our text. However, the main idea of > http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Web_services_on_LLD was that > simple Web Services are important for the spreading the re-use of LLD, > for two main reasons: > > > SPARQL backends and production environments > > There are good reasons why organizations generally do not offer SQL > access to their databases: In a general query language such as SQL or > SPARQL, it is very easy to construct queries that force a server down > by sheer load. This happens even if we assume that all users are good- > willing - simple mistakes or missing knowledge about the physical data > access paths (indexes defined) makes it very likely. My feeling is that > the counter strategies implemented in SPARQL servers (cutting results > after a certain number of triples and/or after a certain amount of CPU > usage and/or restricting the types of queries) are far from mature and > more like makeshifts. > > For a production implementation, the owners have to guarantee reliable > access and a certain quality of service. So in my eyes powerful SPARQL > interfaces are currently limited to labs environments, in order to > discover useful access patterns and queries, or to drive other > experimental implementations. The patterns discovered possibly could > push the further evolution of production quality web services. So, in > my point of view, SPARQL endpoints *are* useful and *should* be > offered, but are at the same time very limited in scope. (Even for > medium sized datasets such as authorities - as far as I know, neither > DNB nor VIAF offer SPARQL access to their datasets). > > > Developer skills > > As the authors of the Linked Data API (thanks, Richard, for the hint) > put it: "Simple RESTful APIs are well supported and understood by a > large community of web developers. Faced with Linked Data and SPARQL > endpoints this community faces a steep learning curve before they are > able to make use of the power provided by the underlying technologies. > Put differently, SPARQL is a power tool whose sophistication is > unnecessary for many users." > > Our main goal should be to offer Linked Data URIs, to aid their > proliferation and to demonstrate the enableing power of Linked Data - > lowering the entry barrier by not requesting a complete new > technologies skillset ("making it much less foreign and frightening", > as Karen put it). > > > I've tried to integrate these aspects into the wiki text. It would be > great if we can agree so far - otherwise please feel free to tweak it > again. > > Cheers, Joachim > > > > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > > Von: public-lld-request@w3.org > > [mailto:public-lld-request@w3.org] Im Auftrag von Young,Jeff (OR) > > Gesendet: Montag, 9. Mai 2011 18:29 > > An: Ford, Kevin; public-lld > > Betreff: 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_Techn > > ologies#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 Tuesday, 10 May 2011 15:15:37 UTC