W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > November 2003

Re: RDF query and Rules - my two cents

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 10:29:18 +0200
Cc: "ext Danny Ayers" <danny666@virgilio.it>, "Graham Klyne" <GK@ninebynine.org>, "Jim Hendler" <hendler@cs.umd.edu>, "Dan Brickley" <danbri@w3.org>, <www-rdf-rules@w3.org>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
To: "ext www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org" <www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org>
Message-Id: <A2350070-1B33-11D8-8364-000A95EAFCEA@nokia.com>

> To allow the SW to function and scale as efficiently as the Web, there
> needs to be the same degree of transparency in the requests for 
> descriptions
> as there is in the requests for representations. For the web, all you
> need to do to get a representation is use GET with a URI that is 
> meaningful
> to the HTTP protocol. For the SW, all you need to do to get a 
> description
> is to use MGET with a URI that is meaningful to the HTTP protocol.

I.e., to GET a representation, you don't GET a disk image, from which
you can extract the single representation desired. Likewise, for the SW,
you wouldn't GET an entire model/KB/graph from which you would extract
the resource description desired.

GET is resource-centric, for representations. MGET is also 
for descriptions.

If folks want to GET entire models, fine, more power to them. But I 
that most SW agents will be far more interested in obtaining knowledge
about particular resources (terms, events, persons, servers, documents,
etc.) and won't want (nor should have) to bother with models, databases,
files, etc.

The URI alone should be enough for the most fundamental form of SW 
just as it is for the Web.




Patrick Stickler
Nokia, Finland
Received on Thursday, 20 November 2003 03:31:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:44:45 UTC