Re: [teiid-dev] [DBpedia-discussion] Protocol
by Sebastian Samaruga
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:
/someSubject[path]/somePredicate[path]/someObject[path]
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
examples.
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.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OqsVn6uo0cr6qruzWj9yRASrmvAIAf4HsHuLS...
Regards,
Sebastián.
On Aug 23, 2017 4:56 PM, "Paul Houle" <paul.houle(a)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(a)gmail.com>
> To: "W3C Semantic Web IG" <semantic-web(a)w3.org>; "public-rww" <
> public-rww(a)w3.org>; "DBpedia" <Dbpedia-discussion(a)lists.sourceforge.net>;
> teiid-dev(a)lists.jboss.org; dev(a)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.
>
>
9 years
Protocol
by Sebastian Samaruga
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/1OqsVn6uo0cr6qruzWj9yRASrmvAIAf4HsHuLS...
Best Regards,
Sebastián.
9 years
Re: [teiid-dev] About your post on "Semenatic Web"issues
by Sebastian Samaruga
Hi,
I've been discussing this issues: the transition from a 'document oriented'
web into a 'data and services oriented web' for a while in the semantic-web
related w3c mailing lists. In short it seems we had have to deal with
building 'applications' over *documents* for a long time and it seems it
does not need to be the the same within a data oriented web (at least for
me).
However, applications does not build by themselves. XML and others promised
interoperability since a long time before RDF and, although I belive RDF /
SW could, there will be no interoperability (as that of RESTFul services)
until there is no agreement in 'semiotic' semantics of representations,
resources and protocols.
The document I'm attaching here is an extended version of yesterday's
abstract but it only states a few concepts regarding integration (alignment
and merge of datasources. I'm not a seasoned SW nor integration developer).
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OqsVn6uo0cr6qruzWj9yRASrmvAIAf4HsHuLS...
Best Regards,
Sebastián.
On Aug 21, 2017 12:36 PM, "Michel Kern" <echopraxium(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello Sebastian
>
> I share your concerns, even though (or precisely because) I'm not a
> 'referent' in Application and Data storage interoperability, I'm a seasoned
> SW engineer (1). My feedback on your article, is that the use case
> illustrates the challenges and needs for a web of interoperables solutions
> (maybe you could mention SKOS among the Semweb languages)
>
>
> My interest for interoperability started in 1997, at this time there was
> CORBA and Microsoft COM, then regarding RDBMS, there was ODBC/JDBC. There
> was also all the vendors buzz like SAP pretending to teach esperanto to the
> babel towers of legacy apps (but in fact replacing backoffice apps by
> theirs)
>
>
> Some time XML and its modelling 'applications' (XML Schema and XMI) gave
> me some hopes, but still no concrete sign of 'user driven apps' built by a
> dynamic process of looking for and assembling 'autodescribed components'
> (SOAP and WSDL was then a kind of CORBA successor)
>
>
> Before the Semantic Web,
> I had never really 'bought' the idea that SQL based Data Storage was
> considered as a 'Silver Bullet', ORM solutions seemed to bring even more
> entropy.
>
>
> But with the advent of Graph Databases (e.g. Neo4J) and this brilliant
> solution (Apache MetaModel) for Data Storage interoperability, I am at last
> more comfortable and comfortable with the idea that the solutions are
> available for designing interoperable solutions in an elegant way at last.
>
>
> I am most fluent in the DataViz and ETL dimensions of Semantic
> networks. I authored a mindmapping app in 2004: Thinkgraph, now I'm
> prototyping a solution to provide interoperability between 'knowledge
> visualization' (e.g. TheBrain, XMind), Data Storage and Curating platforms
> (e.g. Pinterest, Evernote, Youtube, etc..).
> I chose .Net/C# as my development workshop thats why I started a port of
> Apache MetaModel in C#.
>
> Best Regards
>
> Michel Kern
>
> 1. Dassault Systèmes 1991-2000, Nokia 2001-2010
>
>
9 years
Draft thoughts
by Sebastian Samaruga
Hi,
This is a message I usually post into semantic web related mailing lists.
As for my point of view SW could provide a 'glue' for what JBoss Teiid or
Apache Metamodel provides I'm posting copy here (sorry for cross posting):
I've tried to state in a document again what I'd like to solve. This time
I'm trying not to focus on how I'd like to implement things but more in
what I'd like to have implemented. At the end (of the document also) I
state the most important thing I'd like to do: to be able to build better
web applications (semantic or whatever).
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Rb_6qDwVr7qjp9oxEx2SXGI2QzEavt-SXxoGO...
Regards,
Sebastián.
9 years