W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdfa@w3.org > February 2009

HTML5 & SQL Engine Persistence

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 07:50:45 -0500
Message-ID: <499AB2A5.50001@openlinksw.com>
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...

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?



Kingsley Idehen	      Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
President & CEO 
OpenLink Software     Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Received on Tuesday, 17 February 2009 12:51:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:42 UTC