Download as PDF, PPTX
Uploaded by3scale
The API-Application Semantic Gap
The document discusses the gap between application semantics and REST APIs. It argues that more explicit and shared semantics could be used, going beyond just HTTP verbs and object encodings. It presents a model for full-stack application semantics with different levels like context, protocol, actions and objects. More ontology work and shared formats could help bridge the gap between application logic and REST interfaces.
More Related Content
Similar to The API-Application Semantic Gap
![Automating ISP Networks Using Ansible and IPAM as a Source of Truth [SoT]](https://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/ss_thumbnails/automatingispnetworksusingansibleandipamasasourceoftruthsot-v25-1-251124105117-d7d4ca24-thumbnail.jpg?width=640&height=640&fit=bounds)
The API-Application Semantic Gap
- 1. The API-‐Applica.on Seman.cs Gap Steven Willmo, 3scale Inc @3scale -‐ h,p://www.3scale.net
- 2. On Demand API Infrastructure: h,p://3scale.net h,p://www.apitools.com h,p://apistrat.com @3scale me: @njyx on twi,er Powering 650 APIs Billions API Calls / Month
- 3. REST and SemanOcs • More Shared SemanOcs • More ConvenOon v’s ConfiguraOon • More Flexible Clients Key: Explicit, Shared, Re-‐usable SemanOcs (Image: MarOn Fowler / Richardson Model)
- 4. But What Type of SemanOcs ApplicaOon SemanOcs = Chocolate REST-‐1-‐2-‐3 HTTP TCP/IP Domain Objects AcOons ObligaOons Rights…
- 5. Implicit v’s Explicit ApplicaOon SemanOcs Server Client API DefiniOon Data Models / Ontology AcOon DefiniOons (Mental) State
- 6. Today’s REST APIs Profile Message: Object Encoding HTTP Post Vocabulary Human Readable Docs • Implicit and Explicit SemanOcs • Some is Machine Readable • Message Bodies are limited • HTTP Verbs touch ApplicaOon SemanOcs
- 7.
- 8. “Agent” There are Models: e.g. FIPA Agent CommunicaOon Model (Speech Act: Inform :sender :receiver :content “(equal A B)” :language :ontology) (Protocol: Info-‐Exchange… (Context: -‐ Ontologies -‐ Protocols -‐ Logical Frameworks -‐ Rights, Roles, IdenOOes… h,p://fipa.org/repository/index.html A lot more is possible: • Ontologies • PerformaOves • Protocols • Content Logics: DL, FOL, Temporal, Constraint • Mental Models • P2P v’s Client/ Server
- 9. Full Stack ApplicaOon SemanOcs Level Example Context Ontology, IdenOty, Protocol Request Protocol Actude Request, Agree, Cancel, Reject, Inform, … AcOon “(Donald eats apple)” Objects “Apple”, “Person” A lot more is possible: • Ontologies • PerformaOves • Protocols • Content Logics: DL, FOL, Temporal, Constraint Logic • Mental Models • P2P v’s Client/Server
- 10. Progress From Mike’s Talk… • Pass Messages, Not Objects – J … although is REST pure message passing? • Share Vocabularies, Not Models – Share (External) Vocabularies, Not (internal) Models • Use Profiles – J … add more to them • (from James’) AcOvity Streams Ontology – J … helps define context • => on the right path
- 11. Two Paths to Progress • More Formats, More Reasoning Shared Explicit SemanOcs FTW! apicommons.org Experimental Work… Reasoning Clients • More Share formats
- 12. References • References: – h,p://fipa.org/repository/index.html – h,p://www.swagger.io – h,p://alps.io • Images: – Dancing with Happiness – Yarn – Nestle – KitKat
- 13. steve@3scale.net @njyx, @3scale We make awesome API management tools: h,p://www.3scale.net/