Quoting "Wagner,Harry" <[log in to unmask]>:
> Hi Pete,
> I'm not against the idea, but the case for it would have to be pretty
> strong. By this I mean:
>
> - will it simplify the application code or reduce any of the barriers to
> installation?
Dunno! Depends how it is implemented. Hopefully it won't make things any harder
to install. ;-)
> - will it provide functionality not currently available that is deemed
> important to the community?
Yes. It would provide support for a query interface to the DCMI Registry
collection of RDF data that is also adopted by other RDF data hosts.
So (ultimately!) an application could issue SPARQL queries using the SPARQL
protocol against the DCMI Registry server, against a W3C server exposing a
collection of RDF data, against SchemaWeb, and so on, without having to use
multiple application-specific interfaces.
> We would also need to address who would provide the code. I could not
> commit to this between now and year-end, so the source would have to be
> contributed.
OK. And I'm not in a position to contribute code. I'm guessing that once the
specs are finalised then there will be some level of support built-in to RDF
toolkits, so the development effort required _may_ be "just" adding some sort
of "front end".
But yes, I take the point it can't be done now. Something to keep in mind for
the future, I think, though.
Thanks
Pete
-------
Pete Johnston
Research Officer (Interoperability)
UKOLN, University of Bath, Bath BA2 7AY, UK
tel: +44 (0)1225 383619 fax: +44 (0)1225 386838
mailto:[log in to unmask]
http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/ukoln/staff/p.johnston/
|