[Freedombox-discuss] Software as Data, Transformation as a Service

[Dr. Daniel Alexander Smith]

On 6 Nov 2012, at 11:31, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho at gmail.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> On 1 November 2012 16:07, Dr. Daniel Alexander Smith <ds at ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
> 
> On 1 Nov 2012, at 14:45, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Just touching base on this.  We just spent 3 very productive days at TPAC with, among others, timbl and alex bertalis, who reliably informs us that he coined the term "WebBox".
>> 
>> I was wondering your thoughts about working with the guidelines of the upcoming REC track, Linked Data Platform [1], which is being developed by Alex and others.
>> 
>> I think in the case of freedombox it would be desireable to have not only a web identity but to tie it to GPG, which is something I've already done some work on.  
>> 
>> Would love to know your thoughts.
>> 
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/charter.html
> 
> I had a look at your link, but I have hardly any W3C experience, so I'm struggling to understand what you'd like my thoughts on.
> 
> In terms of working within its scope, it's difficult to say. I'm leaning heavily towards working with a single form of JSON-LD (specifically the "expanded" form), and putting all of my effort towards that, rather than turtle or xml/rdf etc. Similarly, we're finding sticking to REST is really constraining.
> 
> The charter does mention JSON-LD, so hopefully they'll make something that developers who like JSON will understand and want to use.
> 
> 
> That's a fair comment.  I guess I'm trying to work out how aligned WebBox and Linked Data are likely to be, moving forward for things like HTTP GET/PUT/POST/DELETE/PATCH.  Sort of interested in a heads up on the direction you are currently thinking of taking things architecturally.
> 
> I think LDP will be compatible with JSON-LD but sets the baseline at turtle.
> 
> There's a few JSON candidates for linked data right now, tho JSON-LD has the most work being done.   Tho one is much the same as another so long as you add a content type you are fine.

We're in a bit of a flux state at the moment, where WebBox both accepts and outputs RDF and JSON.

WebBox acts more like an object-store than a triple-store, and supports versioning in its JSON object API. Because there isn't versioning in linked data PUT/POST, I don't know of whether we should support RDF PUT/POST in addition to versioned JSON.

Similarly, RDF can be uploaded with WebDAV (WebBox has enough WebDAV support to be mounted with any WebDAV tool, including OS X Finder), which also doesn't do versioning.

I've not thought through the consequences of having two APIs, one with version support, and one without, but I suspect there will be non-trivial issues in letting them co-exist.


Best,
Daniel

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/freedombox-discuss/attachments/20121106/4c0ef3f7/attachment.html>