W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > January 2017

Re: grlc turns your Linked Data queries into Linked Data APIs

From: Simon Spero <sesuncedu@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2017 11:47:02 -0500
Message-ID: <CADE8KM5YpxWQE9g_7YqXA0ttb4ExbXeUpd1ngPJZWnGRCtvWUA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ruben Verborgh <Ruben.Verborgh@ugent.be>
Cc: Albert Meroño Peñuela <albert.merono@vu.nl>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>, SW-forum <semantic-web@w3.org>, "Hoekstra, R.J." <rinke.hoekstra@vu.nl>
On Jan 26, 2017 8:21 AM, "Ruben Verborgh" <Ruben.Verborgh@ugent.be> wrote:

Hi Albert,

> No more hard-coded queries in your Linked Data consuming applications!

Why not?

Isn't the whole point of the Semantic Web that clients should know what
they want, instead of servers needing to know what clients want?

Or to say it differently: the more specific an API, the less clients that
are able to use it?


No, or to say it differently, yes, or to say it less differently, yes and
no, prime minister :-)

The main point  of the semantic web is that clients should know[1] what
they got. To the extent that the domain specific view may be used in
contexts where there are stronger shared Ontological commitments, it would
seem that such a view is not in conflict with semantic web principles.

Further, to the extent that the result  is generated by a complex query
requiring extensive knowledge of the internal organization and vocabulary
of the provider's knowledge base, as well as the performance
characteristics of the backing implementation, the simplified API may be
preferable.

Finally, SPARQL is not a simple query language to learn, and it can be much
too easy to copy and paste one's way to a cluster melting Query Of Doom.
One rarely finds open SQL access as part of an API, especially on
purpose...

On the other hand, exposing a raw SPARQL endpoint will allow for richer
queries, and it may be easier to add such an endpoint to a federation that
does not support real time nose following.

I'm not sure if there are LOD SPARQL endpoints that allow UPDATE ; that'd
be a different kettle of kettles.


Simon

[1] Where  "know" means that the to the extent that the client and server
share vocabulary, the client's "beliefs" about the "beliefs"  that the
server "intended" to convey are in accord.
Received on Thursday, 26 January 2017 16:47:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:22:37 UTC