Re: [DBpedia-discussion] Protocol

Neat stuff.

The design covers a wide range but it does so very thinly.  I would like 
to see a critical path identified and fleshed out in more detail,  
something along the lines of a research proposal,  plan for a commercial 
product,  or even a really cool demo.

As for protocol,  thought #1 is that it is hard to introduce an entirely 
new protocol because of the "two sided market" problem.  A "good enough" 
protocol which gives you the data you need is better than a great 
protocol which has no data.  You should look at OData as an example of a 
protocol that is well specified as opposed to GraphQL and see that the 
"one ring to bind them all" is really a system that can master all of 
the protocols.  The rest of the world can (and will) do as it will.

------ Original Message ------
From: "Sebastian Samaruga" <ssamarug@gmail.com>
To: "W3C Semantic Web IG" <semantic-web@w3.org>; "public-rww" 
<public-rww@w3.org>; "DBpedia" 
<Dbpedia-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net>; teiid-dev@lists.jboss.org; 
dev@metamodel.apache.org
Sent: 8/23/2017 2:57:49 PM
Subject: [DBpedia-discussion] Protocol

>Hi, newbie question again: what if a 'protocol' can be regarded as an 
>issue for the 'data web' as there is one for the traditional 'document 
>web'. The question is: does the design issues (ex.: RESTful application 
>design patterns) of a document resource centric web holds (or at least 
>part of them) for the concept of a 'data web' only because it relies in 
>the same protocol / patterns (HTTP).
>
>See attached file (or Protocol section in the link) for a first 
>(confuse / abstract / questionable) set of thoughts in the subject:
>
>https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OqsVn6uo0cr6qruzWj9yRASrmvAIAf4HsHuLS2aRSy8/edit?usp=drivesdk
>
>Best Regards,
>Sebastián.
>