"REST is simpler than SPARQL"
I have difficulty taking you seriously: SPARQL Graph Store Protocol is a
great deal simpler and more RESTful than what you propose and the
difference between that and something actually RESTful is complicated.
Sorry, I have every sympathy for what Hugh said, but if you jump into a
new thread title and make such statements you're going to provoke a
response.
Barry
On 18/04/2013 15:26, Luca Matteis wrote:
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 <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 9:46 AM, Claus Stadler
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> 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.
