- From: Kjetil Kjernsmo <kjetil@kjernsmo.net>
- Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2011 21:42:12 +0100
- To: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
On Monday 7. February 2011 19:07:01 Chimezie Ogbuji wrote: > Again, I'm saying that > there is very little precedence that a developer who wants to expose > an RDF dataset over HTTP (for Create Read Update Delete operations) > can follow to do so. That is what standards are for: to standardize > where there is a need and little consensus. I think the core of the problem: This is simply not true! The thing is that when you GET a URI and you get back a bunch of triples, it is indistinguishable from what people have been doing from the dawn of RDF, namely putting a file on a web server with those triples. Then using PUT, DELETE and POST operations RESTfully is then only the natural thing to do, in fact, the only thing of some importance that a developer really needs clarified is what POST does, all you need to say is that it adds triples. Now, what complicates the matter is SPARQL 1.0s definition of what a graph URI identifies, and I must admit that I do not understand this fully myself, and it is a topic I'm trying to set aside time to fully understand. The other thing that complicates the issue is the indirect graph identification, which I have felt all along is of limited utility and something that could inhibit adoption of the protocol. That's why everyone who I've shown this specification to has gone "huh? what does it really say?" You've taken something that's very familiar to thousands and thousands of developers, and scare them off by a bunch of definitions, which only serves to tell them that Semantic Web is a lot more complicated than they initially thought. It is my opinion that the spec should be tied very strongly to concepts that those hords of developers would recognize immediately, as it fits with how they have always manipulated files on a web server. Any part of the protocol that cannot be specified on those terms should be dropped. We cannot afford the image that the Semantic Web is complicated. I truly believe it is the simplest thing that could possibly work and this protocol should have been really simple and familiar, but currently it isn't. Kjetil -- Kjetil Kjernsmo Ph.d Research Fellow, Semantic Web kjetil@kjernsmo.net http://www.kjetil.kjernsmo.net/
Received on Monday, 7 February 2011 20:42:54 UTC