- From: Nathan Rixham <nathan@webr3.org>
- Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2023 22:13:15 +0000
- To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Cc: public-solid@w3.org
Received on Tuesday, 31 October 2023 22:13:33 UTC
On Tue, 31 Oct 2023, 20:33 Kingsley Idehen, <kidehen@openlinksw.com> 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
Received on Tuesday, 31 October 2023 22:13:33 UTC