RESTful URIs, Unicorns, and Pixie Dust

It often pains me to hear people talking about  so-called “RESTful URLs”. If you’re using that term, or your spending the majority of you application planning designing URI structures rather than your media types, then chances are you don’t really get the concepts in REST.

Frequently, I see developers sit down and start doodling a “REST API” by mapping out a bunch of URI templates like so:

/users/{userId}

/users/{userId}/stuff

/users/{userId}/stuff/{stuffId}

I’ll admit that I’ve been guilty of taking this approach myself. For one thing, it’s easy to communicate on paper. Most folks in business roles are used to seeing site maps where the content layout and URL structure are usually one in the same. By laying URI templates, you’ve kind of accomplished the same thing. Folks can visualize a high-level structure of your application, but you end up backing yourself into a corner that is difficult to get out of. Stu Charlton perhaps summed it up best in one of his more insightful posts:

If one is thinking of “how to methods map to my URI structures”, we’ve basically lost the plot as to why we have HTTP, URIs and media types in the first place. The goal is to *eliminate* the API as we normally think of it. (It’s not about a library of calls over a network).

The problem is that in approaching application design with the URI structure first is that you’re doing things bassackwards. Some people do this because they’ve followed some debatable advice and identified all of the “nouns” their application and started to work out a series of URL patterns that map to these nouns. As they create these URLs, they’ve followed some questionable advice as to what constitutes a “RESTful URL.” Subbu has another nice post dispelling some of those claims, so I won’t get into it here. The problem with doing all of the URI structure work up front is that you end up create a set of type resource URLs end up becoming fixed. Clients now end up coding to a specific set of URI patterns and/or conventions that are only discoverable from your documentation. The URI says nothing about what the data looks like or how the client should interpret it.

Imagine for a moment that you’re a DBA and you’re designing a set of database tables. Which of the two activities are you likely to spend more time on:

  1. The structure of your primary keys
  2. The schema of your database tables

A few of us would opt for something like MySQL’s auto-increment function and we’d be spending the majority of our time on describing the schema. In designing a RESTful application, you should be focusing on the design of your media types rather than what your URLs look like. To be more blunt: you must be focusing your efforts on what the hell your data looks like to consumers of your application. In addition to that, you need to think about how you are expressing links to other resources within your application or resources that are external to it.

This isn’t to say that URL design should be arbitrary and delegated to your web framework of choice. Of course not, you should still have URI strategy. The point is that the specific URI structures are not what consumers of your API will have to deal with directly. It is bad form to make a client rely on “out-of-band” information to construct a URI in your own special little way in order to get into your application. Take this blog post for example. You likely followed a link posted somewhere else. It could have been from an Atom feed, a search result in Google, or a Bit.ly link off of Twitter. It is highly unlikely that you had to type in the URL yourself and figured out the WordPress permalink structure that I have enabled on this site. If you did do that, well then, you’re awesome!

The fact is that clients will enter your application from some entry point or bookmark you’ve defined (.well-known is looking promising), or somewhere else on the web. Unless you’re a major player like Amazon, Facebook, or others, these clients won’t know that you have documentation that painfully detail your APIs URI structures. These clients will simply follow a link into your application. They didn’t type it in according to your fancy-schmancy URI template scheme that is only found in your documentation.  The URL is only a means to identify an locate a resource on the web, it does not define how the resource is represented or make suggestions as to what it’s about (remember that URIs are opaque?). At the end of the day, the client is going to have to be able to understand the media type that is retuned by requests made that URI. If you spend all of your time up front mapping methods to URI structures, you’ll end up introducing a coupling that you can’t easily break free from.

URL vs. URI: URLs as Queries and URIs as Identities

Continuing my with my ranting about the URL vs. URI bit, I thought I’d continue on given my renewed interest in this topic thanks to Ora. In our LEDP position paper, we made the observation that URLs represent queries while URIs are identifiers. If you’re wondering why you should care about this subtle distinction, please read on.

URLs as Queries

We’ve stated that URLs are queries, but what does that really mean? Those of you familiar with blog software such as WordPress, know that the default URL pattern might go something like this:

http://www.damnhandy.com/?p=399

Here, the URL forms a query for a blog post using its internal identifier. In this case, the URL is asking the WordPress database for a post and related items using the primary key of a row that represents the post. For most, it’s pretty obvious that the query parameter “p” refers to the internal identity of the post.

As we mention in the paper, there are many other ways to construct URLs to the same post. For example, we can embed the ID into a path segment:

https://damnhandy.com/archives/399

In all of these cases, the server application is interpreting the URL and using elements of the URL to internally resolve the information the client requested. While I’ve only singled out WordPress, this pattern is quite common among several web application frameworks.

Internal Identity vs. Global Identity

When folks put information on the web, the content they publish usually has two identities:

  1. An Internal or local identity. This maybe the name of a file (i.e. “me.jpg”) or a the primary key of a row in a database.
  2. An external identity which is the ID of the information you’ve published. On the web, this is the “global identity” exposed by the URL of the content

Often, people don’t tend to think about either much. The global identity of a resource is usually an after thought and is determined by the underlying framework driving the application. With web servers serving up documents, we’re usually exposing the the local file name of the of the document. With database driven applictaions, we’re exposing the primary key, or some alternate key, of a row in a database. Quite often when web applictaion changes frameworks, we see the global identity change too and the URL patterns change (i.e. .NET to Java’s JSP, to Ruby, etc.).

Using the previous WordPress example, we know that the internal blog post ID is “399”, but this internal ID really isn’t suitable as a globally unique, unambiguous identifier. Another blog using WordPress, running the same exact version of the software, could also have a blog post ID of “399”. This does not means that the two sites have the same content, it only means that the two instances happen to have a post with an internal ID of “399”. As you might have noticed, the value “399” isn’t a suitable web-scale identifier. We need something else.

Globally Identifiers

Subbu Allamaraju had an interesting post a while back about Resource Identity and Cool URIs. Subbu asserts that there is a distintion between the identity of a resource and its location and his key point is spot on:

URIs uniquely identify resources but a URI used to fetch something is not always a good candidate to serve as a unique identifier in client applications.

And this is where I feel that the core confusion with URLs and URIs: identity vs. location. If we look at his initial example, he desribes the following:


  
      AZA12093
      
      ...
  
  
      ADK31242
      
      ...
  

In his example, the internal identity of each account is being expressed through a path segment in the href attribute of the link element. This approach is functional and is similar to that of the previous WordPress example.

The problem with this approach is that the ID values are only unique within the domain “bank.org”. There’s no reliable way to assert that two sites are referring to the same account if we have to rely on the value of a path segment or query parameter. As stated earlier, if we take WordPress as an exmaple again, blog post “399” might talk about the Kardashians, or something else. There’s no gurantee that the two URLs refer to the same information if they share the same internal identity. Most likely, they don’t.

We could make the link and the ID one in the same:


  
      http://bank.org/account/AZA12093
      
      ...
  
  
      http://bank.org/account/ADK31242
      
      ...
  

You might wonder what the hell is going on here since it looks pretty much the same as the first example. The difference is that we’re saying that the ID and the link are identical. That is, the identity of the account is the URI. That URI also happens to be a URL that can be dereferenced. This works, and it’s considered basic principle of Linked Data.

However, there are some problems with this approach too. As Subbu rightly points out, URIs are not always cool URIs. We are all aware that URIs do change at some point. If Bank.org is acquired by BiggerBank.com, what happens to the ID since we tied the ID to a host name that is likely to be retired soon?

One solution is to follow good web practices and maintain the bank.org domain and either redirect requests to the older URLs to the new ones. Adobe does this with links to FurtureSplash and Macromedia Flash locations. These URLs all resolve to the Adobe Flash product pages.

This strategy allows us to keep the original identity but the link is changed to accommodate the new domain. We can expand on this strategy and change the value of the link:

  
      http://bank.org/account/AZA12093
      
      ...
  
  
      http://bank.org/account/ADK312423
      
      ...
  

Yes, it looks ugly and weird, but it’s valid and it works. If you look closely, it’s not much different from the initial WordPress URL. The only difference is that we’ve replaced a numeric identifier for a URI. It’s a URI that references another URI, but it is valid. For some reason, people just don’t like URLs that look like this.DBPedia does this since they’re describing data on Wikipedia:

http://dbpedia.org/snorql/?describe=http%3A//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_7_Series_%2528E23%2529

The big difference with this approach is that it’s clear that the identifier is globally unique. There’s significantly less ambigutity about the ID: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_7_Series_(E23) than the ID: BMW_7_Series_(E23). Because no one else can mint valid URLs within the Wikipedia domain, you can have greater confidence that multiple applications are referring to the same thing. URIs as identifiers are globally unique.

The global identity of information resources shouldn’t change as frequently as it does. It drives my wife apeshit that all of her recipe bookmarks change everytime MarthaStewart.com updates their site. Part of the problem I believe is that most folks doing Information Architecture don’t take identity into consideration and that a fair number of web frameworks do very little to assist in quality URI/URL design. But this post is long enough, so I’ll save that for another post.

W3C Linked Enterprise Data Workshop and more about URLs vs. URIs

Last week, I had the pleasure of attending the W3C workshop on Linked Enterprise Data Patterns. My colleague Ora Lassila and I gave a presentation on the isues of identity in Linked Data. You can read our position paper and view our presentaion here:

It would seem that many share the same frustrations that Ora and I have with the confusion between URLs and URIs, and the idea that URLs are queries and URIs are identifiers. Readers of this blog will note that over the past few years I have been trying to clarify the difference between a URL and a URI. I think it’s safe to say that even after multiple, detailed posts on the topic, the distinction between the two remains murky for some. Hopefully we can start to clear things up.

Amazon Makes the Kindle Fire an Easy Target for a Thief

Having recieved a Kindle Fire this year, I was really surprised at the unpacking process and minimal security. While the device is very nice, the whole unpacking process made me realize that the Kindle Fire is a package thief’s dream. Here’s a few reason why:

Packaging
One thing that makes stealing a Kinlde Fire easy is the packaging, Amazon makes it quite clear what is in the box. When it arrives to your door, or your bulding’s mail room, the package is clearly marked with the words “Kindle Fire” all over it. In my case, the package sat in our building lobby clearly advertising what’s inside:

This makes it really easy to identify which package has the 7-inch tablet inside.

Automatic Sign-In
When I first opened the package and turned on the Kindle for the 1st time, it skipped past the sign-in screen since my wife’s credentials where already entered and she was automatically logged into Amazon. At first, this seemed like a nice touch for folks like my grandmother who don’t quite get sign-in procedures. However, this approach has far more cons than advantages.

1-Click Enabled by Default
The real kicker is that 1-Click is enabled by default. When you purchase content, you are never prompted for a password. This gives potential gift takers an added bonus: the ability to purchase Amazon content on your dime. And if you have kids, they can snag games as often as they want.

So if you’re considering getting an Amazon Kindle for someone this year, make sure you check the box that says “this is a gift” as this will make sure the device doesn’t sign you in automatically when you get it. Even if you’re going to get it for yourself, this is probably a good thing to do. Second, if you live in an apartment building or condo, you might want to consider shipping the box to your work or someplace where the box isn’t in plain sight.

 

URL vs. URI vs. URN: The Confusion Continues

A year has passsed since my last post on URIs and URLs and it would seem that some of the concepts are still lost on some folks. With that said, I figured I’d throw up another post that I could try and address some of the questions raised in the comments of both posts.

URLs and URNs are both URIs

This is one point that can’t be stated enough. A URL is a URI and a URN is a URI, plain and simple. It’s really quite challenging to phrase it any other way. It’s like trying to explain that a Human is a Mammal but a Mammal is not always a Human.

Examples of URLs and URNs:

People have also suggested that these posts could have been more helpful if I had provided some examples that illustrate the difference between a URL and a URI. Based on the previous point, one should able conclude that a URL is a URI and therefore there’s no reasonable way to present an example that distingushes the two. However, we can provide examples that distingush a URL from a URN:

All of these Examples are URIs:
Examples of URLs: mailto:someone@example.com
http://www.damnhandy.com/
https://github.com/afs/TDB-BDB.git
file:///home/someuser/somefile.txt
Examples of URNs: urn:mpeg:mpeg7:schema:2001urn:isbn:0451450523
urn:sha1:YNCKHTQCWBTRNJIV4WNAE52SJUQCZO5C
urn:uuid:6e8bc430-9c3a-11d9-9669-0800200c9a66

Again, all of the examples above are all valid examples of URIs. You’ll note of course that all of the URNs are prefixed with “urn:”.
URIs are Opaque Identifiers

There’s a very informative page by Tim Berners-Lee that provides a lot of good deails on Uniform Resource Identifiers. One very important point is the notion of URI opacity, which states:

“The only thing you can use an identifier for is to refer to an object. When you are not dereferencing, you should not look at the contents of the URI string to gain other information.”

When you followed the link to this page, you didn’t have to do anything other than clicking it. Your browser only had to look at the URI scheme and the domain in order to resolve this particular document. Everything after “damnhandy.com” is defined to be opaque to the client. This point may seem orthogonal to the original post, but it’s a very important aspect of URIs. I bring this point up because the following question was asked in the comments:

Can we say that:

http://www.domain.tld/somepath/file.php?mykey=somevalue”

is an URI

and that the “http://www.domain.tld/somepath/file.php” part is an URL?

No. No you cannot. Both are URLs, which are also URIs. The idea behind URI Opacity is that you should not look at the string to make any inferences as to what is at the other end. The presence of a query string does not distinguish a URL from a URI. Both strings are URIs and URLs.

Another commenter also asserted the following:

URI is whole address of a resource but resource extension is not mentioned. in URL we also mention the extension.
for example:

URI: http://www.abc/home
URL: http://www.abc/home.html

This is also incorrect. Being pedantic, neither is a syntactically correct URI or URL. But that aside, the presence of a file extention also does not distinguish a URI from a URL. Again, they are both valid URLs as well as URIs. Going back to URI opacity, you also cannot conclude that the two URLs reference the same resource or the same representation. The URI is an opaque string that identifies a resource. They’re still both URIs.

HTTP URIs Can Identify Non-Document Resources

This the one point that I think hits at the crux of everyone’s confusion on the matter. Things get all meta-meta when we start using URIs to identify things that are not documents on the web. It is perfectly acceptable to use to URIs to identify concepts, or non-document resources. If a URI happens to express scheme that suggests that it can be dereferenced, it is not a requirement that a document resource is actually dereferenced by that URI.

Most people’s expectation of HTTP URIs is that they it can always be dereferenced. There is a common assumption that an HTTP URI must point to a document. If it document resources is not available at that URI, that is you get a 404 error, then the URI is somehow bad. Just because the server could not locate document or a representation for the URI, does not mean that the HTTP URI is an invalid identifier.

The finer bits of this issue are summed up in httpRange-14 as well as this article by Xiaoshu Wang. The concepts around httpRange-14 are deep , but I think it’s these types of ideas that trips people up a lot. IMHO, it’s one of those concepts that gets muddled in the great internet telephone game that causes more confusion. For example, it seems that people are under the impression that if a URL does not express a file extension, then it represents a concept and therefore is a URI, but it just doesn’t work that way.

A URL is a URI and a URI can be used to represent anything. Furthermore, each URI is unique. This is why you cannot assume that http://www.abc/home is the same as http://www.abc/home.html just by looking at the URI. These are both distinct URIs that may or may not represent the same resource. Because URIs are opaque, you as the client should not be attempting to make any decisions about the URI.

The AppleTV is an Anomaly

I have to admit that the new $99 AppleTV caught my attention when it was announced a few days ago. Small, cheap, works with iTunes, Netflix built in, and all for $99. Sounds pretty cool, right? I don’t think so anymore.

See, in my home everything is wireless and there are only laptops and soon a NAS. I want to have access to all of our files and media assets in one spot and be able to access those files on multiple devices. Most decent NAS solutions provide the storage and retrieval functionalities I need. What’s missing is the devices to play it back on. Clearly, I can play back stuff on my Mac and PC laptops and other devices. Getting media on my TV is another story.

The new AppleTV  has no internal storage and only streams media files from another source. In order to do this, a Mac or PC has to be running with iTunes open in order to stream the media files. This is rather inefficient since one of my laptops would have to be running while I’m watching TV. Now one could use a NAS to stream media files. Most NAS devices can stream audio via some type of iTunes friendly media server. Video likely won’t work on such NAS devices since some content would be DRM’d with FairPlay.  Since Apple does not support DLNA and has gone the proprietary route, there isn’t really a good way to stream video from a centralized source other than a desktop running iTunes.

Apple appears to be hanging on to the “digital hub” mentality whereby the Mac is still the center of “your digital life.” Actually, my  so called “digital life” resides in the data itself and not so much the mechanisms that I use to access it. At $99, the Apple TV isn’t a bargain once you start to realize the extras you’ll need in order to make it participate in a complete solution. For me, this complete solution doesn’t appear to exist yet. The closest thing that comes to it doesn’t bear an an Apple logo but rather a Windows one.

Protocol Buffers are not very “RESTish”.

There’s been a lot of activity recently around highly optimized, binary serialization formats such as Google Protocol Buffers and Thrift. There have been some attempts to include formats such as Protocol Buffers into their “REST API” because of perceived performance benefits without consideration of the downside of an IDL format with respect to REST.

To illustrate why Protocol Buffers inherently adulterate REST architectural style, I’ve compiled the following points:

Imposes a Tight Coupling

This tight coupling is considered a REST anti-pattern and should be avoided. Protobuf over HTTP is probably a form of RPC-URI tunneling, it is not REST. In order to work with protobufs efficiently, both the client and server must have code generated by the .proto definition.

Strongly Typed Resources

A key point made my Roy T. Fielding in one of his more informative blog posts is that:

A REST API should never have “typed” resources that are significant to the client. Specification authors may use resource types for describing server implementation behind the interface, but those types must be irrelevant and invisible to the client. The only types that are significant to a client are the current representation’s media type and standardized relation names.

I’m not totally sure I’ve got this one 100% correct, but it would appear that the use of protobufs is now also exposing typed resources to the client. Additionally, there is no means to specify which type to ask for. Which leads me to my next point:

Ambiguous Media Type

Subbu Allamaraju has pointed out that the protobuf media type doesn’t doesn’t convey enough information as to indicate what message type is in the protobuf representation in a post about a Protobuf provider for JAX-RS. Protobuf doesn’t have an official media type, but folks generally use one of the following media types:

     application/x-protobuf
     application/vnd.google.protobuf

Protobufs are not generic and the representation contains data for a very specific message. Furthermore, the serialized form contains no information as to what type(s) it represents. So although you may have specified the media type in the request, there is no mechanism to specify which protobuf message we actually want. One suggestion as to how this might be resolved is to specify the .proto package and message name by using a parameter:

     application/vnd.google.protobuf;proto=mypkg.MyMessage

The approach seems reasonable enough. But as Subbu also points out, this solution also requires that the .proto be shared between the client and server in order to establish the binding. Clearly there’s a number of options that could be applied share the .proto definition, but all of them involve some type of external configuration in order to resolve the .proto since the protobuf wire format is not self-describing.

Self-Describing formats must be Self-Describing

Protocol Buffers are not self-describing by design. The Google documentation even states that:

Protocol Buffers do not contain descriptions of their own types. Thus, given only a raw message without the corresponding .proto file defining its type, it is difficult to extract any useful data.”

This isn’t necessary a bad thing in general, but it does violate a core tenet or RESTful architecture. Section 5.2.1.2 of the Roy T. Fielding’s dissertation states that a proper representation consists of the following:

  • The data
  • Metadata that describes the data
  • Optional metadata about the metadata, usually used to for integrity checking.

Protocol Buffers only handle the data. Google has presented an option for making protobuf messages self-describing. While this works, it still has three fundamental flaws:

  1. The SelfDescribingMessage itself is not self-describing 😉
  2. There’s still a tight coupling between client and server for the SelfDescribingMessage as generated code is still required on both client and server.
  3. It doesn’t address dependency resolution. That is, message you’re sending over might extend or depend on other .proto definitions. How you resolve those dependencies is a challenge.

The dependency resolution is no small challenge and becomes a major headache if you’re extending messages from other parties.

Application State is not Hypermedia driven

Protocol Buffers do not have a means to describe links to external messages. Most applications I’ve encountered that use protobufs either send the entire message tree in a single call or there is some type of ID value that the client will have to dereference somehow. The latter ultimately results  in either forcing the client to infer and generate URLs, which is yet another REST anti-pattern.

Wrapping Up

This isn’t to say that Protocol Buffers are inherently bad. Google has proven that protobufs have value when used as intended. Outside of an RPC system, protocol buffers are really don’t seem appropriate for web applications who claim to be RESTful. Of course, I could be complete wrong here and I’m sure the internets will be certain to let me know.

URL vs. URI vs. URN, in More Concise Terms

Without a doubt, the URL vs. URI post is by the most visited page on this blog. Even so, there’s still a lot of confusion on the topic and so I thought I’d break it down in less words. The original post was slightly misleading in that I attempted to compare URI to URL, when in fact it should have defined the relationship between URI, URL, and URN. In this post, I hope to clear that in more concise terms. But first, here’s a pretty picture:

uri_class_diagram

Both URLs and URNs are specializations, or subclasses of URI. You can refer to both URLs and URNs as a URI. In applictaion terms: if your application only calls for a URI, you should be free to use either or.
Now, here’s where the big difference between URN and URL: a URL is location bound and dereferencable over the web. A URN is just a name and isn’t bound to a network location. However, BOTH are still valid URIs. Now, if the application requires a URI that is bound to a network location, you must use the specialization of URI called URL.

Remember that URI stands for Uniform Resource Identifier, which is used to identify some “thing”, or resource, on the web. Both URLs and URNs are specialization’s (or subclasses if you will), of URI. You’d be correct by referring to both a URL or URN as a URI. In applictaion terms: if your application only calls for an identifier, you should be free to use either a URL or a URN. For brevity, you can state that the application simply requires a URI and the use of a URL or URN would statisfy that requirement.

Now if your application needs a URI that dereferencable over the web, you should be aware of the difference between URN and URL. A URL is location bound and defines the mechanism as to how to retrieve the resource over the web. A URN is just a name and isn’t bound to a network location. For example, you may have a URN for a books ISBN number in the form of urn:isbn:0451450523. The URN is still a valid URI, but you cannot dereference it, it’s just a name used to provide identity. So to put in simpler terms:

  • A URI is used to define the identity of some thing on the on the web
  • Both URL and URN are URIs
  • A URN only defines a name, it provides no details about how to get the resource over a network.
  • A URL defines how to retrieve the resource over the web.
  • You can get a “thing” via a URL, you can’t get anything with a URN
  • Both URL and URN are URIs as the both identify a resource

There some other items that need clarification based on some comments I’ve received from the original post:

  • Elements of a URI such as query string, file extension, etc. have no bearing on whether or not a URL is a URI. If the URI is defines how to get a resource over the web, it’s a URL.
  • A URL is not limited to HTTP. There are many other protocol schemes that can be plugged into a URL.
  • If a URL defines a scheme other than HTTP, it does not magically become a URI. The URI defines how to get the resource, whether it be HTTP, FTP, SMB, etc., it’s still a URL. But because the URL identifies a resource, it’s a URI as well.

Yeah, I’ve probably repeated myself a few times, but I wanted to stress a few points.

There’s also been some confusion about when to use the term URI. As I stated in the original post explained above, it depends on what you’re doing. If everything your application does involves accessing data over the web, you’re most likely using URL exclusively. In that case, it wouldn’t be a bad thing to use the term URL. Now, if the application can use either a network location, or a name, then URI is the proper term. For example, XML namespaces are usually declared using a URI. The namespace may just be a name, or a URL that references a DTD or XML Schema. So if you’re using a URL for identity and retrieval, it’s probably best to use URI.

Adobe XMP Packet Extraction for the Aperture Framework

When it comes to manipulating photographs, I live in Photoshop. One feature of all Adobe products that I like is the ability to annotate images and other documents using their eXtensible Metadata Platform, or XMP. XMP is a collection of RDF statements that get embedded into a document that describe many facets of the document. I’ve always wanted to be able to somehow get that data out of these files and doing something with it for application purposes.

There are projects like Jempbox, which work on manipulating the XMP data but offers no facilities to extract the XMP packet from image files. The Apache XML Graphics Commons is more the ticket I was looking for. The library includes and XMP parser that performs by scanning a files for the XMP header. The approach works quite well and supports pretty much every format supported by the XMP specification. The downside of XML Graphics Commons is that it doesn’t property read all of the RDF statements. Some of the data is skipped or missed completely. To top it off, neither framework allows you to get at the raw RDF data.

What I really wanted to do was to get the XMP packet in its entirety and load it into a triples store like Sesame or Virtuoso. This of course means that you want to have the data available as RDF. Rather than inventing my own framework to do all of this, I found the Aperture Framework. Aperture is simply amazing framework that can extract RDF statements from just about anything. Of course, the one thing that is missing is XMP support. So, I set out on implementing my own Extractor that can suck out the entire XMP packet as RDF. It’s based on the work started in the XML Graphics Commons project, but modified significantly so that it pulls out the RDF data. Once extracted, it’s very easy to store the statements into a triple store and execute SPARQL queries on it.

Right now the, this  XMPExtractor can read XMP from the following formats:

  • JPEG Images (image/jpeg)
  • TIFF Images (image/tiff)
  • Adobe DNG (image/x-adobe-dng)
  • Portable Network Graphic (image/png)
  • PDF (application/pdf)
  • EPS, Postscipt, and Adobe Illustrator files (application/postscript)
  • Quicktime (video/quicktime)
  • AVI (video/x-msvideo)
  • MPEG-4 (video/mp4)
  • MPEG-2 (video/mpeg)
  • MP3 (audio/mpeg)
  • WAV Audio (audio/x-wav)

On the downside, I’ve found that if you use the XMPExtractor with a Crawler, you’ll run into some problems with Adobe Illustrator files. The problem is that the PDFExtractor mistakes these files for PDFs and then fails. But as long as you’re not using Illustrator files, you should be ok. There’s also a few nitpicks with JPEG files and the JpgExtractor in that the sample files included in the XMP SDK are flagged as invalid JPEG files. However, every JPEG file I created from Photoshop and iPhoto seem to work fine. But after a little more testing, I’ll look at offering it up as a contribution to the project.

Semantic Web Icon and Logo Stencil for OmniGraffle

I’ve been doing a lot of diagrams related to some of the projects that I have doing with RDF and other Semantic Web technologies. Rather that cut and paste PNG icons into OmniGraffle, I decided to start putting together a stencil. Here’s what it looks like so far:Semantic Web Icons

It’s not much right now, but I’ll try and keep it up to date as I add more icons from the W3C site and other sources. It should be up on GraffleTopia soon.

Update: And here’s the direct link to the stencil.