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

On 12/26/12 4:01 PM, Hugh Glaser wrote:
> Hi.
> On 26 Dec 2012, at 07:50, Giovanni Tummarello <giovanni.tummarello@deri.org>
>   wrote:
>
>>>> A good argument ... for using sitemaps·
>>>
>>> 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.

+1


Kingsley
>
> 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
>>
>
>
>


-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen