On 06/21/2013 01:06 PM, Kingsley Idehen 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.
Again, that is a *mischaracterization*. TimBl's design issue memes are
not dictums to be blindly followed. They offer *insights* that must be
*understood*. They are *brilliant* insights if they are understood, but
they are also terse, sloppily written, full of typos, and dependent on a
lot on context to understand. Thus they are easily misunderstood as well.
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.
Yet again you have mischaracterized this debate. AFAIK *nobody* on this
list has claimed that SPARQL is a required element of Linked Data, even
though it may be a *common* element.
*Think* about it. Can the goals of the Semantic Web be achieved without
SPARQL? Certainly. Can they be achieved without RDF? Not without
re-architecting the Semantic Web, because without a standard universal
data model, we would have walled gardens of data that a client
application could not meaningfully combine.
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*.
No, it is not about *dogma*, it is about conforming to *architecture* to
make the Semantic Web work. The use of URIs in the web is not dogma, it
is a fundamental piece of the architecture that makes the web work.
Similarly, RDF is a fundamental piece of the architecture that makes the
Semantic Web work. The Semantic Web requires a standard universal data
model, just as the web requires a standard universal identification
scheme. URIs were chosen as that universal identification scheme; RDF
was chosen as that universal data model.
What do I mean by RDF and SPARQL are Linked Data implementation details?
Call them implementation details if you wish, but RDF is an
implementation detail just as URIs are an implementation detail. Users
do not need to understand them, but they *must* be there for the
Semantic Web and the regular web to work.
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.
Wrong. If you believe that the essence of TimBL's Linked Data meme is
to enable the Semantic Web, or if you believe that Linked Data is "the
Semantic Web done right", then there *is* no other path to Linked Data,
because the Semantic Web critically relies on the use of a standard
universal data model, just as the regular web critically relies on the
use of a standard universal identification scheme: URIs. If you
represent data in a non-RDF-enabled format, then client applications
will not able to automatically combine that data with other data. Each
kind of data will be its own walled garden, and that is the *opposite*
of what the Semantic Web aims to achieve. The inescapable implication
is that unless the Semantic Web is re-architected, RDF is *required* for
Linked Data to support the Semantic Web, just as URIs are *required* for
the web.
David
