(www-rdf-rules trimmed) On Thu, Nov 20, 2003 at 10:38:05AM -0800, Joshua Allen wrote: > OK, this is a great start. So why are some people so obsessed with > trying to shoehorn these requirements into a REST model? Because it's something the REST model can handle well, and REST is a fine architectural style to use at large scale. > With semistructured data model we have a standard selection language > (XPath), and de-facto APIs (although lacking in DML, it is a good start) > -- these too can be *optionally* invoked through GET/PUT mappings. > Again, *some* people use XML this way, but nobody would argue that > PUT/GET mappings are the high-order bit in XML adoption. > > Finally, with RDF data model we have crap; no defacto way of storing > models, We have HTTP PUT & POST. > no de-facto access API, We have HTTP GET. > no de-facto or prominent query > mechanisms, We have HTTP GET, but need a query language > no de-facto update mechanism. We have HTTP PUT & POST. > Anyone wanting to store or > query data models is stuck in a ghetto of half-implemented and > confusingly contradictory houses of cards. But despite the fact that we > don't even have the slightest freekin' semblance of a consistent > data-access architecture, we still have people arguing religiously about > HOW IT SHOULD USE PUT/GET! Does anyone else see something slightly > inverted about priorities here? Not at all. The Web is a Very Good Thing. We should be building on top of it for maximum gain. For example, queries should be done via GET so that I can have URIs for them (or should that be that queries should go in URIs so I can invoke GET on them? 8-). Mark. -- Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.caReceived on Thursday, 20 November 2003 14:15:50 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:44:45 UTC