DFC standard specifications
DFC Use Cases
DFC Use Cases
  • Introduction
  • Sources and licences
  • Contact and partners
  • Semantic specifications
    • Business ontology
    • Product ontology
    • Technical ontology
  • Technical specifications
    • Protocols specifications
    • Decentralized identifier matching reference system
    • Specifics API
    • Authentication strategy
    • Architecture representations
  • Prototype specifications
  • 🚧Solid client protocol
  • 🚧Connector
    • Model specifications
    • Semantizer specifications
    • Connector specifications
  • Use Cases
    • Enterprise Use Cases
    • Product Use Cases
      • Product Transformations
      • CSA Use Cases
    • Orders
    • Order Use Cases
      • Wholesale Order Processing
    • Glossary of terms
  • Appendixes
    • Appendix 1. General decisions
      • Federation vs Syndication
      • Stateless or stateful?
      • Service granularity
      • Directionality
      • Identification and authentication
      • Centralized or decentralized data storage
      • Metadata repository
    • Appendix 2. Technical decisions
      • Libraries to develop in semantic
      • Transition strategy fron current to ideal
      • Service standard
      • Serialization
      • Transport layer
      • Multi- or single-resource requests?
      • Right delegation between platforms and DFC
      • Data validity and inferences
    • Appendix 3. Practical Examples
      • Version 1.9
      • Version 1.8.2
      • version 1.7.4
      • version 1.7.3
      • version 1.7.1
      • version 1.7
      • version 1.6.2
      • version 1.6.1
      • version 1.6
      • version 1.5.1
      • version 1.5
      • version 1.3
      • version 1.2
  • Contributing
    • Procedures
      • Updates to the ontology
        • Patch releases procedure
        • Minor releases procedure
        • Major releases procedure
      • Taxonomy enrichment
        • Taxonomy updates
    • Platform Notifcations
  • Platform Register
    • Platform Register
Powered by GitBook
On this page

Was this helpful?

  1. Appendixes
  2. Appendix 1. General decisions

Directionality

One key factors to differentiate between protocols is their directionality:

  • Unidirectional = a client requests from a server and the server responds. The server cannot initiate the communication.

  • Bi-directional = the client and the server can send messages without being requested.

The advantage of bidirectionality is that one can also adopt a push mode, where the server sends data to the client. For example regarding inventory: a product on platform A is purchased, but this product is also sold on platform B, platform A could "push" the information that the available stock has changed to platform B. The need to have uni- or bi-directionality is therefore related to the need to have data synchronization and notifications in real time. An alternative in the example above using unidirectionality could be that servers send pull requests, every minute for example, to know if the stock has changed. Is it sufficient ? Do we want real time or near real time to 1 or 5 minutes?

So far the protocol used in the semantic web is rather unidirectional, HTTP or LDP. It can be a simple request about a resource (file: LDP or base of triplestore: HTTP) or more complete queries with Sparql.

There is today very little R&D on bidirectionality in the semantic world, it is still very experimental (AMQP + SPARQL, XMPP + SPARQL, HTTP2 + SPARQL, WebSocket). The terrain is slippery, not yet mature. The theoretical ideal would of course be bi-directional, but the rational and practical solution of the consortium is rather to use unidirectionality. We prefer to focus our vision towards new and proven standards and technologies. We will see later when technologies will mature if it makes sense to switch to bidirectional.

Conclusion: implement a unidirectional solution

PreviousService granularityNextIdentification and authentication

Last updated 10 months ago

Was this helpful?