W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > December 2012

Re: Proposal: register /.well-known/sparql with IANA

From: Hugh Glaser <hg@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2012 21:01:42 +0000
To: Giovanni Tummarello <giovanni.tummarello@deri.org>
CC: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, Linking Open Data <public-lod@w3.org>
Message-ID: <387E72E216DF1247A2F8ED4819C93BA71E3FE45F@UOS-MSG00041-SI.soton.ac.uk>
Hi.
On 26 Dec 2012, at 07:50, Giovanni Tummarello <giovanni.tummarello@deri.org>
 wrote:

>>> A good argument ... for using sitemapsˇ
>> 
>> 
>> Yes, those too.
>> 
>> Fundamentally, we need to give discoverability and associated patterns a lot
>> more focus that has been done in the past. This is such a critical component
>> for making Linked Data easier to discover and appreciate.
>> 
> 
> good point re discoverability but you need clients too.
> 
> we rolled out something very simple to understand and deploy in
> sitemap back in 2007 even.
And very useful it is too!

And you are so right to focus on consuming.
But sorry to disappoint you, Giovanni :-) but I do use sitemaps as a consumer - and they are great.
For our dotac.info/explorer (as was rkbexplorer.com) I need to get bibliographic data.
This can be hard work - and using OAI-PMH is not for the faint-hearted.
DSpace is therefore a challenge, but because ePrints offers Linked Data supported by sitemaps it is pretty straightforward, and we can keep it all up to date as well.
(The stuff goes in foreign.rkbexplorer.com, and of course you can find out about it at http://foreign.rkbexplorer.com/sitemap.xml which leads to http://foreign.rkbexplorer.com/models/void.ttl)

I think Kingsley's point that they lean towards crawlers is valid. I don't know of people who get tiny bits of data based around sitemaps.
But I can see no point at all in defining new ways of doing things if we don't even use what we have.
Unless we can be confident they will be useful, fit for some purpose, etc..

Here's a suggestion: let's have Reference Implementations. This is the norm for a lot of standards proposals.
But when I say Reference Implementation, I mean the whole thing. So that includes the consumers (clients, I think is what Kingsley called them).
So no progress on proposals without a system that uses the proposal to do something useful that is not just a pedagogical example.

If people want a /.well-known/sparql (or anything else) they should show us a Reference Client that uses it usefully, while also considering how the same thing might be achieved easily using other technologies.

Best
Hugh

> http://sw.deri.org/2007/07/sitemapextension/
> 
> it has a concept of "dataset" (each can have a dump a sparql endpoitn
> and an extention used to serve resolvable uris)
> 
> a few data producers did actually implement it but the problem was on
> the consumer side.
> 
> We consumed it ..okish at sindice.com but nobody else did, because
> there was no semantic web/linked data  client really ever.
> focus was on "publish your data" and something will happen,
> 
> Can we think of a client that does something useful:
> 
> * for real and not for a made up use corner case easily solved with a
> google search + 2 clicks.
> * connected to the reality of everyday browsing and web usage e.g.
> facebook, chrome browsing or mobile and not . So forget "alice wants
> to publish her own foaf file. "
> * generic enough and giving repeated value not to be a one off thing
> not only usable in super narrow contexts.
> * for real sustainability and growth, the value must be for both data
> publisher and consumer,should be directly measurable in ways people
> understand (roi etc)
> 
> the client, the use case == the value , everything follows from there.
> 
> Google schema.org etc clearly hits all the above except the client its
> THEM and everyone goes trough them.
> 
> saying this in general for those not in specific to you kingsley :)
> 
> Gio
> 
Received on Wednesday, 26 December 2012 21:02:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:30:02 UTC