W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > August 2017

Re: [DBpedia-discussion] Protocol

From: Sebastian Samaruga <ssamarug@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2017 11:03:11 -0300
Message-ID: <CAOLUXBup_ZzMmtR-AMshbe5VhQJMzZCELmDAOu1HdFAH=92AQQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Paul Houle <paul.houle@ontology2.com>
Cc: dev@metamodel.apache.org, public-rww <public-rww@w3.org>, teiid-dev@lists.jboss.org, DBpedia <Dbpedia-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net>, W3C Semantic Web IG <semantic-web@w3.org>
Its true that OData is a really good protocol, in the sense that it is more
an 'application' layer over HTTP and I've been inspired by that. This way
this proposal is also a meta-protocol over HTTP and paths are built along
the lines of URI paths like:


in the realm of some domain. Posted paths and metadata (referrer) are
submitted through request body and headers. Let me work a while for real

I think I've missed some important part for the 'application' layer (as
HTML is for the 'document' oriented web) that is the 'representation' part
of the resource. This paragraph added to the document (incomplete, confuse,
questionable due this hypermedia approach) tries to address the issue:

"Representations (requesting client metamodel resources) are built upon
aggregating and aligning protocol dialog 'path' resources into data (Fact,
Event), information (Kind, Rule) and knowledge / behavior (Class, Flow) in
the requesting node, maybe by multiple ‘posts’ / traversals of activated
contexts. Those are the same models which get 'activated' in the requested
side by means of async messages IO."

This is all but a incomplete draft of thoughts. Please be patient if bother
in reading.


On Aug 23, 2017 4:56 PM, "Paul Houle" <paul.houle@ontology2.com> wrote:

> 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/1OqsVn6uo0cr6qruzWj9yRASrmvAIA
> f4HsHuLS2aRSy8/edit?usp=drivesdk
> Best Regards,
> Sebastián.

Received on Thursday, 24 August 2017 14:04:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:45:51 UTC