2010/3/30 Carlo von Loesch <[email protected]> > Just comparing some semantic web thinking vs. wire protocol design > thinking... > > Melvin Carvalho typeth: > | *1) The Nodes > | > | *I'd use a global URI for this, e.g. FOAF marked up in RDFa. This would > | mean my profile would be http://daisycha.in/foo and you'd have a tag > | something like <div typeof="Person" about="#me"> would probably be > | sufficient to give you a permanent node in the social graph. > > My "URI" is psyc://psyced.org/~lynx <http://psyced.org/%7Elynx> although I > don't consider myself a > resource. If you want to know who my friends are you get a list of URIs > in a list data structure. That's practical, because you don't have > to extract it from some document. >
UNI according to your white paper :) But that's fine if it's a URI, we can add these to your profile easily enough so that people can find your psyc identifier with little difficulty The reverse is harder, either you find a way to dereference the psyc:// identifier, or use a search facility (the webfinger style?) however we may well be able to do this quite easily with sparql. > > | *2) The Message Semantics > | * > | This will typically describe the data involved in something like a status > | update, private message, wall post, friend request etc, from one node to > | another. A key element to make this portable is to allow the semantics > to > | be marked up with a global namespace > > PSYC does not have problems with namespaces as long as you follow the > rules of keyword inheritance. Therefore you can format any message, as > long as you can derive it from some standard message. If you need to > generate a wiki update message, you can come up with a > _notice_update_wiki which is a derivate of _notice_update. > Sounds compatible then > > | *3) The Transport Layer > | * > | As has been mentioned Atom and RSS1.0 are two candidates, but so are many > | other transport layers, such as HTTP POST, XMPP, UDP, multicast, PSYC > etc. > > PSYC isn't just a transport layer. It models multicast, subscriptions, > trust and has extensible message structures. That's why you wouldn't > typically do RDF on top of it if there are more powerful native ways > to do things. But ways to regenerate RDF out of PSYC can be created. > > There once was a working group on "binary XML." It didn't come up with > a format but it created a wishlist of things binary XML should be able > to do. PSYC does a lot of that, so you can think of it as binary XML, > too. > If the psyc trust data is portable it should be able to be reused over protocols. > > -- > ___ psyc://psyced.org/~lynX <http://psyced.org/%7ElynX> ___ irc:// > psyced.org/welcome ___ > ___ xmpp:[email protected] <xmpp%[email protected]> ____ > https://psyced.org/PSYC/ _____ > > >
