Re: files or database for solid pods [Was: Towards Solid Lite]

On 10/31/23 6:13 PM, Nathan Rixham wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Oct 2023, 20:33 Kingsley Idehen, <> 
> wrote:
>     I encourage you to think in terms of storage abstraction where
>     DBMS (Tables or Graph based Relations) vs Filesystems are
>     implementation details.
>     Solid should be storage agnostic leaving such details to server
>     implementers. As you can already see, whenever the discussion
>     steps out of the appropriate abstraction layer -- confusion reigns
>     supreme.
> Agree, however being both storage agnostic and media type agnostic 
> (RDF) is a big set of requirements for a 'lite' anything.
> Perhaps the benefits of being just a protocol, outweigh those of being 
> many-typed.
> Perhaps such a solidy/readwrite-webby thing based on a strict subset 
> of json-ld (json with schema and uri support via id + properties via 
> the curies/schema) would be enough to simplify to something broadly 
> implementable, simple to specify, and still viewable as rdf.
> Not to rewind the conversation by a decade or anything.
> Best, Nathan

Hi Nathan,

Re "..being both storage agnostic and media type agnostic (RDF) is a big 
set of requirements for a 'lite' anything."

To be clearer, on my part:

I am saying developers should be able to implement solid servers for 
their preferred storage engine type. Nothing in the spec should mandate 
if that's a DBMS or Filesystem. Likewise, client implementers should be 
able to do so using whatever their payload format preferences may be.

The key is not to enforce anything on anyone, bar use of a common 
interface layer :)


Kingsley Idehen 
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Home Page:
Community Support:
Weblogs (Blogs):
Company Blog:
Virtuoso Blog:
Data Access Drivers Blog:

Personal Weblogs (Blogs):
Medium Blog:
Legacy Blogs:

Profile Pages:

Web Identities (WebID):

Received on Wednesday, 1 November 2023 01:08:46 UTC