On 6/21/13 8:02 PM, David Booth wrote:
On 06/21/2013 10:25 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:On 6/21/13 10:15 AM, David Booth wrote:[ . . . ]The only sensible interpretation of the stars is that they indicate milestones of progress *toward* "Linked Open Data" -- *not* that there are five levels of Linked Open Data.That makes sense. Thus, why can't you accept the same thinking if we look at RDF unique selling points as part of such a journey too?Because just as the goals of the web cannot be achieved by having "a journey toward URIs", the goals of the Semantic Web cannot be achieved by having "a journey toward RDF".
Look, the journey has zilch to do with labels. It has everything to do the the concepts they denote. The destination is an Internet-scale mesh of web-like structured data with varying degrees entity relationship semantic fidelity. That's the journey, the literals "RDF" and "Semantic Web" are must identifiers for which specs handle the name-address indirection in our human minds.
It's the concept that matters.
RDF is *fundamental* to the Semantic Web, just as URIs are *fundamental* to the Web. RDF is the universal data model that enables Semantic Web data to be meaningfully combined by automated applications. That *cannot* be done without either: (a) a boat load of artificial intelligence and processing power that is out of reach of most mortals; (b) a dramatic new discovery that the world has not yet seen; or (c) a universal data model.What's wrong with folks arriving at points in the continuum where RDF's virtues kick-in without actually being aware of RDF?Nobody has claimed that people must be *aware* of RDF for a document to be standards-interpretable as RDF. Indeed, it seems very likely that *many* JSON-LD users will be unaware that JSON-LD is actually RDF in addition to being JSON. The important point is just that the data *be* standards-interpretable as RDF. Whether or not it *looks* to the untrained eye like RDF is quite irrelevant.
Again, I defer with you when you say "standards-interpretable as RDF" since (to me) that statement is quite ambiguous. What does "as RDF" mean? Does that characterization trump the fundamental concept of an Internet- and Web-scale mesh of entity relationships where:
1. each entity is denoted unambiguously using a resolvable identifier (or reference e.g., an HTTP URI);
2. each entity is associated with another via a relationship ; 3. each relationship is represented via a 3-tuple (triple) statement;4. each member of the relationship has a specific role (subject, predicate, object OR entity, attribute, value OR object, sign, interpretant);
5. each relationship is a member of set known as a mathematical relation;6. each mathematical relation (in this context) has a predicate that determines membership.
BTW -- I still don't know if you accept the world view outlined in my venn diagram [1]. I don't want to misquote you, so at the very least, could you confirm if you agree with the venn diagram or not.No, I do not.
Thank you for making that clear. Our differences are now much more simpler to understand.
Related:1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sign_relation - Sign Relation (some background on this subject matter).
Kingsley
DavidLinks: 1. http://bit.ly/16EVFVG -- how Structured Data (Linked Data), Predicate Logic (RDF), and Identifiers (URIs) are related.
-- 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
