Paul Prescod wrote:
> If you have that convention then you've blown away the ability for an
> element to be graph-connected to another element through a
> hyperlink. In
> other words you've restricted your "graph" to trees!
Well, I confessed that this solution would have less power.
> Then you have the option of thinking of your graph as
> conforming to "the
> RDF graph model" or "Matthew's graph model." If you choose the former
> then you get access to RDF query engines, RDF validators
> (which will be
> much more sophisticated for working with graphs than XML Schema),
> RDF-based web application servers like RedFoot, etc. If you choose the
> latter then you have to reinvent all of that stuff.
>
> RDF validators will handle subtyping, validating links and
> probably will
> also have some inferencing capabilities.
Let me recast this in another context:
---
Then you have the option of thinking of your web services as conforming to
the "SOAP web services model" or "Paul's web services model." If you choose
the former then you get access to SOAP libraries, SOAP development toolkits
(which will be much more sophisticated for developing distributed
applications than REST), SOAP-enabled services like Google, etc. If you
choose the latter then you have to reinvent all that stuff.
SOAP web services will handle RPC functionality, content encoding and will
probably also support protocols other than HTTP.
---
Sound familiar? I think the analogy is valid. But if I have to go on an
evangelical quest like you have for REST... well, that's a pretty daunting
prospect. Hell, I'll probably go for it anyway.
Matt
