Re: Linked Data and the Original Web Proposal

Excerpts from Luca Matteis's message of 2013-06-24 21:29:14 +0000:
> Exactly. And for me Linked Data is defined by those set of implementation
> details (HTTP, RDF, URIs and SPARQL).
> The only difference between my understanding and yours is that you think
> that you can still produce valid Linked Data even without HTTP (using your
> own URI resolver), whilst I think you can *only* use HTTP in order to call
> it Linked Data.
Interesting, IMO relevant, conversation happens on
in particular message:

Really?  I've got to go back and review the XDI docs again.  I was under the impression that HTTP was merely the *first* transport they were defining and that XMPP was in the pipeline.  It's not a far stretch to suppose that MQTT could act as a transport as well.  Although the physical route for XMPP and MQTT traverses a broker at the hub, the XDI node identifiers can map directly to identifiers in those protocols, resulting in a logical peer-to-peer topology at the devices.  That eliminates any issue with dynamic IP addresses, in the same way that two email clients resolve each other by email address rather than by IP address.  And of course, this eliminates the need for HTTPD or a LAMP stack.  Just a few k for an MQTT client or whatever XMPP requires.

I would also like at some point dive in technologies like ,

Which of course doesn't mean that I don't <3 HTTP, RDF and SPARQL ;)

Received on Friday, 28 June 2013 22:00:39 UTC