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&gt; 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.