- From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 07:50:45 -0500
- To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- CC: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>, Kjetil Kjernsmo <kjetil@kjernsmo.net>, Jeremy Carroll <jeremy@topquadrant.com>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, public-rdfa@w3.org, RDFa mailing list <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>, 'Karl Dubost' <karl@la-grange.net>, Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@webbackplane.com>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Michael Bolger <michael@michaelbolger.net>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Dan Brickley wrote: > > > Can the advanced facilities in HTML5 (eg. SQL persistence) be usefully > combined with RDFa usage scenarios. For example, can we > load/store/cache parsed RDFS/OWL schemas within the browser? Can we > use the browser's crypto APIs to check the schema hasn't been > maliciously interfered with? Can we serialize the in-page RDFa triples > into the browser's SQL store and perform SPARQL queries on it (i) > within the SQL environment through query rewriting (ii) using > in-memory .js SPARQL implementations... > All, Dan's comments above just rekindled another point of confusion and concern for me re. HTML5. Why do we have the notion of SQL persistence instead generic DBMS persistence? There are many DBMS models for persisting data, and each is accessible for queries and CRUD via standard APIs. Why aren't we considering a more generic notion of DBMS persistence instead of model specific SQL persistence? -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen President & CEO OpenLink Software Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Received on Tuesday, 17 February 2009 12:51:48 UTC