Re: RDF query and Rules - my two cents

(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 Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.

Received on Thursday, 20 November 2003 14:15:50 UTC