Re: RDF Update Feeds + URI time travel on HTTP-level

I don't think that the two options are mutually exclusive. The choice  
of subversion as technology platform and Memento as http interaction  
style seems very feasible. One would only have to implement memento  
for subversion, something which we have discussed but not yet  
attempted, and everything should work "out of the box".

Hope that helps

Rob Sanderson

Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 25, 2009, at 3:51, Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> wrote:

> Danny Ayers wrote:
>> What Damian said. I keep all my treasures in Subversion, it seems  
>> to work.
>>
>>
>>
>
> 3rd that; whilst the http time travel conversation goes on - I can't
> help feeling that going down the date header route is only going to  
> end
> up in something nobody uses; because it doesn't provide any
> implementation details to the developer, and thus nobody will adopt  
> it.
>
> subversion/webdav/deltav on the other hand, everybody knows, it  
> already
> works, does the trick and would be easy to implement - essentially all
> we're saying is let's version control rdf, a concept we can all
> understand, and at worst the addition of a http response "version"
> header tag would pretty much solve exposing all this functionality
> through http/rest etc. We could handle exposing diffs etc via restful
> post/get params (?since=r6) and also expose different synchronisation
> endpoints for data eg on a graph level or a resource level, or  
> however a
> developer chooses to do it; the point is that simply specifying to use
> version control and one additional version response header will do  
> the job.
>
> it's not perfect, it's not time travel; but it addresses the need in a
> familiar standards based way that's been thoroughly thought through  
> and
> tested; and moreover it'll allow us all to get on and sync our RDF,  
> now,
> rather than in 2 years when it's too late.
>
> all imho of course.
>
> the only thing I can see that remains is to determine the format /
> serialization of the updates, and primarily delete, we can take it for
> granted that all normal triples / quads are new - so all we need to do
> is find a way of saying X quad / triple has been removed.
>
> kinds regards, and naive as ever,
>
> nathan

Received on Wednesday, 25 November 2009 17:10:57 UTC