On 6/21/13 7:03 PM, Nathan Rixham wrote:
Linked Data is a moving target, it's not Linked Data 1.0, 1.1, 2.0 etc, it's a set of technologies which make it easy to have machine readable data that is interlinked on the web.If Linked Data is built on HTTP currently, then the media types used have to be registered, which limits the set, but this set of supported mediatypes can and will change over time, as will the protocols used, as will the ontologies and the data, and so forth.You can't lock it in stone, or preclude innovation and new specifications, common sense and basic web architecture entail using URIs/IRIs, common protocols (HTTP), registered media types, and so forth, but if a large eco system of data in a new media type is developed or an older one bootstrapped and commonly supported, it's going to be Linked Data.Interoperability, modularity, and, tolerance - they're all critical, and none of them entail forever using only RDF and SPARQL
+1000 Thank You! Kingsley
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 11:38 PM, Stephane Fellah <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 5:49 PM, Kingsley Idehen <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: On 6/21/13 3:25 PM, Stephane Fellah wrote:+1 David. It is clear that interoperability of any system is enabled by a set of widely adopted standards (similar to TCP/IP for internet, HTTP/URI for the Web). TBL clearly indicated in his revised document that the standards for Linked Data are URI, HTTP, RDF and SPARQL for the query language. I am not going to argue with this, like I am not going to argue that HTTP is the protocol for hypertext. You may argue that the specs are imperfect, but they are truly a solid foundation for SW architecture. The specs can be revised and improved other time (such HTTP 1.0,HTTP 1.1, SPARQL 1.1, RDF 1.1, OWL 2.0). While the writing is TBL's personal opinion, RDF and SPARQL are W3C standards. Introducing other standards would break interoperability of the system. This would be my last intervention on this subject, as I think I explain enough my position. I just do not have the energy and time to keep arguing about this topic,as it brings nothing new on the table to improve the goal of SW.What part of the excerpt below (from my opening post of this thread) contradicts the fact that SPARQL and RDF are W3C standards? I just said they are the standards for Linked Data. You want to call it implementation details. This is misleading because you imply that it is OK to use other standards. I think that I differ we you. It is not a detail. It is the standard so you leverage all the technologies and tools developed on this foundation. What do I mean by RDF and SPARQL are Linked Data implementation details? I said: They (RDF and SPARQL) 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*. Let me make an analogy of the current discussion: The *Open Systems Interconnection (OSI) model i*s a conceptual model <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conceptual_model> that characterizes and standardizes the internal functions of a communications system <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_system> by partitioning it into abstraction layers <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstraction_layer>. This model is used to built the Internet. Now you come and say: * TCP/IP is an implementation details of the Internet of the OSI stack. We do not need to use TCP/IP to make Internet work, which is true (UDP is an alternative protocol for example). What happens if you use something else than TCP/IP today ? You will build your own implementation of Internet and you will find yourself pretty isolated because you have no way to interoperate with the widely used TCP/IP based Internet. You will have to start from scratch and rebuild all the set of tools and technologies to leverage your new standards. You fracture the internet into silos. What did you accomplish by introducing a new implementation detail, except saying : Hey look at my awesome internet implementation that does the same thing that the Internet. If you want to use it, you have to buy/use all my technology stack ? Guess what would be my answer ? Good luck to get your proprietary system widely adopted... To avoid fracture, you have to agree on widely adopted OPEN standards. By using OPEN standards, people can built something useful on stable foundation on which there is no commercial interest of any kind. RDF is a W3C OPEN standard and is widely used today by developers dealing with Linked Data. There are today a lot of tools available built on these standards. There is no good incentive to provide an alternative to RDF model. I cannot see any better and simpler model than the triple model based on URIs. May be you can enlight me what is wrong with RDF? What your "enhanced RDF" model is all about? (Keep in mind that RDF can have different serializations such as JSON-LD, TTL, N3 etc..). Sincerely Stephane *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 ++. *The Question* What happens when someone seeks an alternative route to the same destination? What happens when someone has already produced Linked Data compatible with the original meme modulo RDF and SPARQL? Links (*Live Links/References Relevant Information*): 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> <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. KingsleySincerely Stephane On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 3:06 PM, David Wood <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: 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] <mailto:[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 <http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/%7Ekidehen> > Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen > Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about > LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen > > > > >--Regards, Kingsley Idehen Founder & CEO OpenLink Software Company Web:http://www.openlinksw.com Personal Weblog:http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen <http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/%7Ekidehen> Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen Google+ Profile:https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about LinkedIn Profile:http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
-- 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
