Hi Kingsley, I really [1] hate to get drawn on this, but I think that Tim made it rather clear with his revised Design Issue document that the standards (RDF* and SPARQL) were necessary. That's why he added them. I agree.
Now, perhaps we can stop having the same discussion in thirty different threads? Please? Regards, Dave -- http://about.me/david_wood [1] *Really!* On Jun 21, 2013, at 13:06, Kingsley Idehen <[email protected]> wrote: > All, > > Situation Analysis (for additional context): > > There are two versions of Design Issues documents [1][2] from TimBL where the > primary topic is Linked Data. Both documents a comprised of four bullet > points that outline a principled approach to document content production and > publication en route to a Web of Data. > > Naturally, for a majority of folks, TimBL's design issue memes (irrespective > of their clearly stated disclaimers) are deemed authoritative with regards to > matters relating to Web Architecture and best practices. > > Current Problem: > > The fundamental meaning of point three in both Linked Data memes has > *inadvertently* lead to very strong differences of opinion, with regards to > interpretation. Here are the two interpretations (that I know of) which stand > out the most: > > 1. RDF and SPARQL are implementation details > 2. RDF and SPARQL aren't implementation details -- basically, you can't > produce Linked Data without knowledge and/or a commitment to either. > > Why do we need to resolve this matter? > > It has become a distraction at every level, it is basically leading to > fragmentation where there should be common understanding. For example, some > of us are more comfortable with RDF and SPARQL as implementation details > while others aren't (it seems!). This difference of interpretation appears > insignificant at first blush, but as you drill-down into the many threads > about this matter we also hit the key issues of *tolerance* vs *dogma*. > > What do I mean by RDF and SPARQL are Linked Data implementation details? > > They are W3C standards that aid the process of building Linked Data (as > outlined in the TimBL's revised meme). That said, it doesn't mean that you > cannot take other paths to Linked Data while remaining 100% compliant with > the essence of TimBL's original Linked Data meme. > > > Example: > > DBpedia (and other LInked Data endeavors that leverage Virtuoso or tools like > Pubby) apply point number three (either meme version) as follows: > > 1. use HTTP re-write rules to generate SPARQL Protocol URLs > 2. use content negotiation to align SPARQL protocol URLs with the content > types requested by an HTTP user agent. > > The net effect of the above is as follows: > > 1. HTML browsers become Linked Data Browsers -- including IE6 (you can > follow-your-nose to wherever curiosity takes you without exiting HTML) > 2. CSV Browsers become Linked Data Browsers -- I've demonstrated this using > SPARQL-FED based SPARQL protocol URLs that simply return CSV output > 3. RDF processors are exposed to the expanse of Linked Data -- i.e., they > have wider access to entities enhanced with an understanding of their > relationship semantics > 4. OWL processors are exposed to the expanse of Linked Data -- ditto ++. > > Links: > > 1. http://bit.ly/14gE7wQ -- TimBL's original Linked Data meme > 2. http://bit.ly/NvbPLF -- TimBL's revised Linked Data meme > 3. http://dbpedia.org/resource/Linked_data -- DBpedia URI for the Linked Data > concept > 4. http://bit.ly/13lcdAM -- Vapor (Linked Data verification utility) report > for <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Linked_data> > 5. http://bit.ly/16EVFVG -- Venn diagram illustrating how some of us see the > relationship between Linked Data, RDF, and Identifiers. > > -- > > 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
