- From: Martynas Jusevičius <martynas@atomgraph.com>
- Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2019 14:58:37 +0100
- To: Linked Data Platform Working Group <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>, hypermedia-web@googlegroups.com, public-declarative-apps@w3.org, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>, public-lod <public-lod@w3.org>
- Cc: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
Hi all, cross-posting as I think this touches both Semantic Web and Linked Data and hypermedia. I finally wrote down something that was bothering me for a while, namely formal semantics of web interactions: https://gist.github.com/namedgraph/64ef07b0a3a66092cfdcbf65eefbf00f The document defines CRUD semantics for 3 different RDF quad-based protocols: Linked Data, Graph Store [1] and Quad Store [2]. Linked Data and Graph Store are shown to be orthogonal projections of an RDF dataset. The semantics show that URIs built into the RDF data model allow a formal specification of a uniform, generic web API. I believe it could be demonstrated that a data model without built-in URIs and a generic merge operation cannot be used to specify such a uniform API. These semantics are what Linked Data Templates [3] boil down to, minus SPARQL. The LDT spec is being updated to better reflect quad-based semantics. It is also what I think Linked Data Platform should have specified, instead of some loose prose definitions. Where LDP falls in this classification is unclear to me -- it is a form of Graph Store, but with overloaded and incompatible with GSP semantics. Note that (POST to) containers does not require special treatment: membership can be specified as part of the quads payload, and the resolution of member URIs is a process separate/orthogonal to CRUD. We discussed this with TimBL and came to a disagreement: what he calls Linked Data I call Graph Store. However, under the definition of Linked Data as "[retrieval of] a description of the resource that is identified by the URI" [4], returning graph contents as a resource description does not hold in the general case, as graphs are unlikely to contain triples about themselves. I think that shows there is conflation between terms "resource description" and "graph", which I strongly believe are orthogonal concepts. Feedback is very welcome. [1] https://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-http-rdf-update/ [2] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sparql-dev/2014AprJun/0008.html [3] https://atomgraph.github.io/Linked-Data-Templates/ [4] http://linkeddatabook.com/editions/1.0/#htoc11 Martynas atomgraph.com
Received on Thursday, 21 February 2019 13:59:13 UTC