- From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 10:29:18 +0200
- To: "ext www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org" <www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org>
- 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 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 resource-centric, for descriptions. If folks want to GET entire models, fine, more power to them. But I think 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 activity, just as it is for the Web. Cheers, Patrick -- Patrick Stickler Nokia, Finland patrick.stickler@nokia.com
Received on Thursday, 20 November 2003 03:31:38 UTC