On 6/19/13 2:29 AM, エリクソン トーレ wrote:
-----元のメッセージ----- 差出人: Kingsley Idehen [mailto:[email protected]] 送信日時: 2013年6月19日 10:25 On 6/18/13 7:32 PM, エリクソン トーレ wrote:An addendum to 1.:1.1. However, useful* linked data will always be directly mappable to RDF.Put differently, you produce more useful Linked Data via RDF. That's something that easily demonstrable too!I would be interested in seeing some linked data that is incompatible with RDF while still adhering to rules like using global identifiers and typed links.Nobody is claiming that Linked Data is incompatible with RDF. The point being made is that you can produce Linked Data, that 100% compliant with TimBL's original Linked Data meme, without any knowledge or use of RDF. That's all. None of that implies RDF is useless etc.. It simply means that Linked Data and RDF aren't the same thing.My point was that even if the data producer doesn't know anything about RDF, when applying the meme he will produce something that follows the RDF abstract syntax.
RDF's abstract syntax is Subject->Predicate->Object. And what I am telling you is that it isn't a unique distinguishing feature since a lot of other folks are familiar with Entity->Attribute->Value.
The 3-tuple approach to relationship representation isn't a distinguishing characteristic of RDF. I produced an venn diagram [1] to make this a little clearer. I also produced a sample document comprised of structured data which isn't uniquely RDF [2].
That is the strength of RDF and why I think it is an intrinsic part of Linked Data.
Please look at the venn diagram.
The exact semantics of RDF, its typed literals and blank nodes may be hard to explain, but the basic concept is not. Neither is it unique to RDF, as you pointed out elswere,* I wouldn't consider linked data with untyped links useful, but I guess some people might...Nobody has made any claims of that kind. BTW -- What is an untyped link? As far as I know there aren't any untyped Links on the World Wide Web, it just so happens that the semantics of the relations denoted by said links aren't necessarily machine-comprehensible (or interpretable) :-)For me HTML 4.1 links lacking a @rel or @rev are untyped.
But it isn't about HTML its about URIs. The Web is a woven together via the URIs that denote the following Relations:
1. linksTo -- as exemplified by HTML anchors you have [DocURI/URL]--(href)--->[DocURI/URL] (note: href is a linksTo Relation) 2. Denotes -- when a URI denotes an Entity there is an implicit Relation i.e., [Identifier]--(denotes)--->[thing] (on the Web URIs provide the denotation function).
I suppose you could type them implicitly as rdfs:seeAlso or something similar. I also ment to include typed links where the type lacks, as you say, (RDF-)specified semantics. Tore Eriksson
Links:1. http://bit.ly/16EVFVG -- Venn diagram illustrating how Identifiers (URIs), Structured Data (Linked Data), and RDF (Predicate Logic) are related 2. http://kingsley.idehen.net/DAV/home/kidehen/Public/DropBox/Public/Linked%20Data%20Resources/linked-data-rdf-test.ttl -- what makes this uniquely RDF?
-- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Founder & CEO OpenLink Software Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
