On 19 Jun 2011, at 13:04, Kingsley Idehen wrote: > On 6/19/11 12:05 PM, Hugh Glaser wrote: >> "A step too far"? >> >> Hi. >> I've sort of been waiting for someone to say: >> "I have a system that consumes RDF from the world out there (eg dbpedia), >> and it would break and be unfixable if the sources didn't do 303 or #." >> Plenty of people saying they can't express what they want without it. >> And plenty of people saying they can't write some code that they might not >> be able to understand some RDF they receive properly. >> But no actual examples in the wild (at least as far as I can tell in a lot >> of messages). >> >> This might be for quite a few reasons, such as: >> 1) There are no such consuming systems; >> 2) The existing consuming systems would not break. >> >> Number (1) would be too embarrassing, and is wrong because I have some, so >> I'll think about number (2). >> >> There seem to be some axes in the discussion: >> publish / consume >> long/medium term / shorter term >> ideal / pragmatic >> Interestingly, we don't seem to have a strong theory / practice axis, which >> is great. >> >> As a publisher, I/we have had to work pretty hard to conform to really quite >> complex requirements for publishing RDF as Linked Data; not just Range-14, >> but voiD, sitemaps and various bits and pieces that Kingsley always tells me >> to do in the RDF. >> As a consumer, it has been pretty simple: "Well guv, thanks for the URI, >> here's some RDF." >> It has always been something of a source of angst (if not actual pain) to me >> that none of the extra work I put into publishing RDF is ever used by me or >> anyone else, as far as I know. > > Er. we use it :-) Er, I'm not sure you do :-) You certainly consume it, and a very nice job you do to. But the "use" is more than generic browsers - it suggest to me that something useful might happen as a result of the consumption (perhaps I learn that I can ask Jim to introduce me to Mary, as he knows her better than anyone else I know). These things are usually called applications, or possibly services. They tend to be reasonably domain-specific, as generic things tend not to be easy to sue, or even fit for purpose for end users. Sorry if I have missed stuff.
> The problem with this whole Linked Data thing is that its truly Ninja tech. > > The killer conductor of value is the LINK. This lethal weapon applies to all > dimensions of the Web: > > 1. Information Space > 2. Data Space > 3. Knowledge Space. > > Trouble is, where do we find strong anecdotes for a cross dimensional lethal > weapon? I try to use Stars Wars and the FORCE at times, but even that doesn't > quite nail what we are dealing with here. Thus, we could take another > approach i.e., embrace and extend what we know is anomalous since the AWWW > architecture (FORCE) actually lets us do this anyway. > > >> In fact, some of the sites I consume actually don't do things "properly" - I >> might have had to change my consuming systems to cope with this, but I >> don't, because they already cope fine. > > Exactly! You are using the FORCE :-) > >> Why is it not a problem? One obvious reason is that the consuming >> application is actually looking for specific knowledge about things. >> I don't have a consuming system that is considering both lexical and animal >> subjects, and so confusion does not arise. > > You have a Data Space dimension app. The Information Space dimension doesn't > interfere with your world view. This is key in many ways. For instance, > imagine if your app was of the Information Space dimension instead, the > effect would be very close to what we see today re. those that see Name and > Address disambiguation as impractical overkill since nothing breaks in the > world they experience. > >> In fact, it is the predicates that tend to distinguish satisfactorily for me >> (as has been pointed out by some people). > > Yep! The Data Space realm lets you Describe anything with clarity, and even > when unclear, agents can ultimately agree to disagree without obliteration. > >> Thus, if I get a triple that says the URI that would resolve to my Facebook >> page foaf:knows the URI that would resolve to your Facebook page, I (my >> system) will happily interpret that as one person (or whatever) foaf:knows >> the other. I certainly don't want to go and resolve these to find out to >> what the URIs actually resolve. And if I did, what would I do about it? >> Ignore it? > > As you would in code generally, encounter an exception, and decide if you > avoid making it a critical fault :-) > >> In fact, as has also been mentioned, you can define domains, ranges and >> restrictions for as long as you like, but it is quite possible and likely >> that the users of URIs will continue blissfully unaware of any of this, in >> exactly the same way that they continue unaware that there might be >> something ambiguous about the URIs they are using. >> > > Yes, when they operate in the Information Space dimension. > >> By the way, as is well-known I think, a lot of people use and therefore must >> be happy with URIs that are not Range-14 compliant, such as >> http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema . > > In the Information Space dimension, yes. In that dimension it doesn't matter. > >> When we help people publish, it really is tough to engage them long enough >> to care about the complex issues, and they often get it wrong - I am engaged >> with quite a few people who are now publishing serious amounts of >> interesting RDF where I have contacted them to try to help. The status of >> the conversations is that they have fixed what they can, and are now >> thinking (for a long time) about how they might configure their systems to >> do it properly - but they may never get there. I will still want to use >> their RDF. > > Yes, and all you do is show them a tweaked version of their RDF, should they > wander by your data space (which is grounded in the Data Space realm). > >> So, trying to be a little brief: >> I have always felt that the full Range-14 distinction was in danger of being >> a Step Too Far. > > Its fine, we just can't present it in edict form to people experiencing and > operating with the Information Space dimension of the WWW. > >> Yes, it does matter, and it is likely (or at least possible) we will pay a >> price in the end. > > You betcha! > >> But the world is trying to pass us by - it has at least pulled alongside. > > IMHO. People are doing what they always do: ignore warnings and scramble > desperately for cures, post calamity. Note, in most cases, using the industry > behemoths as examples, calamity == business model erosion courtesy of > exponentially increasing opportunity costs. > >> We must work out why we seem to have lost any lead we had, because it is >> likely to be the same reason we will get left behind. > > We need to accept that the WWW has many dimensions to it, Information, Data, > and Knowledge. Thus, we can't speak from the Data Space dimension to folks in > the Information Space dimension and expect immediate comprehension. We could > (hence power of HTTP 200 OK) operate within the Information Space dimension > and unveil the Data Space dimension. Like all contextual matters, we have to > align "context lenses" in order for use to develop constructive dialog. This > is why "embrace and extend" (not the way Microsoft did it many years ago) is > the way to go re. unveiling Data Space dimension from the Information Space > dimension. > >> And I happen to believe that what we have can be better than the >> alternatives. >> >> Sorry Pat, I don't actually have a proposal. > > My proposal is this: we just need to be more accommodating of what we may > perceive as imperfections, in our data space oriented context. We should > always embrace structured data contributions in any form. We can transform > structured data to high fidelity linked data in a myriad of ways that > ultimately help others comprehend what's taking shape re. the WWW as a Global > Data Space. > >> But I do know we need to be liberal in what we consume. > > +1000 > >> And we might need to be a bit more liberal in what we praise, or at least be >> nicer to people who want to publish RDF and don't do Range-14. > > +1000 > > > Kingsley >> Best >> Hugh >> >> On 19 Jun 2011, at 05:05, Pat Hayes wrote: >> >>> Really (sorry to keep raining on the parade, but) it is not as simple as >>> this. Look, it is indeed easy to not bother distinguishing male from female >>> dogs. One simply talks of dogs without mentioning gender, and there is a >>> lot that can be said about dogs without getting into that second topic. But >>> confusing web pages, or documents more generally, with the things the >>> documents are about, now that does matter a lot more, simply because it is >>> virtually impossible to say *anything* about documents-or-things without >>> immediately being clear which of them - documents or things - one is >>> talking about. And there is a good reason why this particular confusion is >>> so destructive. Unlike the dogs-vs-bitches case, the difference between the >>> document and its topic, the thing, is that one is ABOUT the other. This is >>> not simply a matter of ignoring some potentially relevant information (the >>> gender of the dog) because one is temporarily not concerned with it: it is >>> two different ways of using the very names that are the fabric of the >>> descriptive representations themselves. It confuses language with language >>> use, confuses language with meta-language. It is like saying giraffe has >>> seven letters rather than "giraffe" has seven letters. Maybe this does not >>> break Web architecture, but it certainly breaks **semantic** architecture. >>> It completely destroys any semantic coherence we might, in some perhaps >>> impossibly optimistic vision of the future, manage to create within the >>> semantic web. So yes indeed, the Web will go on happily confusing things >>> with documents, partly because the Web really has no actual contact with >>> things at all: it is entirely constructed from documents (in a wide sense). >>> But the SEMANTIC Web will wither and die, or perhaps be still-born, if it >>> cannot find some way to keep use and mention separate and coherent. So far, >>> http-range-14 is the only viable suggestion I have seen for how to do this. >>> If anyone has a better one, let us discuss it. But just blandly assuming >>> that it will all come out in the wash is a bad idea. It won't. >>> >>> Pat >>> >>> On Jun 18, 2011, at 1:51 PM, Danny Ayers wrote: >>> >>>> On 17 June 2011 02:46, David Booth<[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I agree with TimBL that it is *good* to distinguish between web pages >>>>> and dogs -- and we should encourage folks to do so -- because doing so >>>>> *does* help applications that need this distinction. But the failure to >>>>> make this distinction does *not* break the web architecture any more >>>>> than a failure to distinguish between male dogs and female dogs. >>>> Thanks David, a nice summary of the most important point IMHO. >>>> >>>> Ok, I've been trying to rationalize the case where there is a failure >>>> to make the distinction, but that's very much secondary to the fact >>>> that nothing really gets broken. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Danny. >>>> >>>> http://danny.ayers.name >>>> >>>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>> IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 >>> 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office >>> Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax >>> FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile >>> phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> > > > -- > > Regards, > > Kingsley Idehen > President& CEO > OpenLink Software > Web: http://www.openlinksw.com > Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen > Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen > > > > > > > -- Hugh Glaser, Intelligence, Agents, Multimedia School of Electronics and Computer Science, University of Southampton, Southampton SO17 1BJ Work: +44 23 8059 3670, Fax: +44 23 8059 3045 Mobile: +44 75 9533 4155 , Home: +44 23 8061 5652 http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~hg/
