Guys, it's also about making things simpler. Sure SPARQL works and it's a great things to have. But we (Semantic Web community) should thrive for simplicity. And for this matter REST is simpler than SPARQL - that's just the way it is.
On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 4:21 PM, Mark Baker <dist...@acm.org> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 9:46 AM, Claus Stadler > <cstad...@informatik.uni-leipzig.de> wrote: > > For example: > > "Show me projects, corresponding partners in France and their amount of > > funding". Whats missing in SemMap is just adding UI elements that add > > sorting and aggregation to the generated SPARQL query. (Yes, Freebase > can do > > that too). > > > > Now show me how you would do that with a REST API ;) > > GET /projects?partners=fr&extrafields=funding HTTP/1.0 > > along with a form and supporting declarative metadata describing the > relationship between the two pages in play (the form and the result > page from submitting the form). > > More generally, I think an old blog post of mine about REST and SPARQL > is still bang-on about why we haven't, and won't ever, see SPARQL > endpoints being anything other than a niche offered either by those > who can afford to run such a service, or published privately to > partners; > > http://www.markbaker.ca/blog/2006/08/sparql-useful-but-not-a-game-changer/ > > The economics of publication are just drastically different between > exposing a RESTful interface, and exposing a query language. > > Mark. > >