From 2959874c3341d3d7a867c8a21d5b5b48b058b334 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: =?UTF-8?q?Andreas=20Sch=C3=A4rtl?= <andreas@schaertl.me>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2020 15:13:47 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] report: write about apps
I like playing w/ languages, but I am not sure at all if this is a
good idea.
---
doc/report/Makefile | 2 +-
doc/report/applications.tex | 27 ++++++++++++++++++++++
doc/report/{endpoint.tex => endpoints.tex} | 0
doc/report/report.tex | 8 ++++++-
4 files changed, 35 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
create mode 100644 doc/report/applications.tex
rename doc/report/{endpoint.tex => endpoints.tex} (100%)
diff --git a/doc/report/Makefile b/doc/report/Makefile
index 5f5455b..eb08d02 100644
--- a/doc/report/Makefile
+++ b/doc/report/Makefile
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-TEX_SOURCES = report.tex abstract.tex endpoint.tex
+TEX_SOURCES = report.tex abstract.tex endpoints.tex applications.tex
report.pdf: $(TEX_SOURCES) references.bib
chronic pdflatex $<
diff --git a/doc/report/applications.tex b/doc/report/applications.tex
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..f2fad98
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/report/applications.tex
@@ -0,0 +1,27 @@
+\section{Applications}
+
+With endpoints in place, we can now query the ULO/RDF
+data set. Depending on the kind of application, different interfaces
+and approaches to querying the database might make sense.
+
+For integrating the ULO/RDF data set into an existing application, it
+probably is reasonable to directly query the data set using RDF4J.
+That is, of course, assuming the existing co debase is based on the
+{JVM}. If that is not the case, generating SPARQL queries is the
+obvious choice.
+
+The advantage of this approach is that connecting and interacting
+with the database is straightforward. The disadvantage is that this
+approach requires a deep understanding of structure of the underlying
+ULO triplets.
+
+\subsection{A Language for Organizational Data}
+
+ULO/RDF is a subset of RDF. While it can be queried as just standard
+RDF data, maybe it is helpful to design a query language only for
+ULO/RDF triplets. Expressions in this particular query language could
+then be converted to SPARQL or RDF4J expressions. Ideally this means
+that (1)~the query language is intuitive and easy to use for this
+specific use case and (2)~execution is still fast as the underlying
+SPARQL database is already very optimized.
+
diff --git a/doc/report/endpoint.tex b/doc/report/endpoints.tex
similarity index 100%
rename from doc/report/endpoint.tex
rename to doc/report/endpoints.tex
diff --git a/doc/report/report.tex b/doc/report/report.tex
index 5fd7ebd..a46f4e4 100644
--- a/doc/report/report.tex
+++ b/doc/report/report.tex
@@ -35,7 +35,13 @@
\input{abstract.tex}
\end{abstract}
-\input{endpoint.tex}
+\textbf{
+ --- This is more of a scratchpad for now. Do not go into this document
+ expecting a real report just yet. ---
+}
+
+\input{endpoints.tex}
+\input{applications.tex}
\newpage
\printbibliography{}
--
GitLab