RE: making RDF model visible in spec [was: representing hypermedia controls in RDF]

Alrighty.. then everything that had to be said has already been said :-)

Ruben volunteered (more or less, thanks again) to translate the example to
Turtle in December. I'm not opposed at all of including them - I was just
worried it might confuse people more than it helps and adds additional
workload on myself. We will see how it turns out.

So let's move back to discussing more interesting things. Topics for new
threads could e.g. be: Do people plan to implement something based on Hydra?
Is there something missing to do so? Is something unclear in the spec?


Thanks,
Markus


--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler



On Wednesday, November 27, 2013 4:41 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> On 11/27/13 6:57 AM, Markus Lanthaler wrote:
> > On Tuesday, November 26, 2013 5:35 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> >> Markus: you have to be as clear as possible about how RDF and Hydra
> are
> >> related.
> > Hydra is a RDF vocabulary. Nothing more, nothing less. Isn't that
> clear?
> > Some concrete suggestion on how to make this clearer (apart from
> including
> > Turtle examples)?
> 
> Please rewind to your exchange with Reuben, hence my comments. Turtle
> is
> a notation (or so called concrete syntax), like JSON-LD, both enable
> structured data representation using the RDF model (which includes it
> relation semantics). The problem is that said "relation semantics" have
> to be discernible (readable) and comprehensible (understandable re.
> entailments) to both humans an machines. Thus, if you continue to
> insist
> on JSON-LD only, or question the virtues of Turtle, you end up with
> RDF/XML circa. 2013 where humans can't actually discern or comprehend
> the intricacies of the relation semantics expressed in the
> vocabulary/ontology.
> 
> Remember, the flawed justification for RDF/XML was that is was for
> machines. Basically, that it was for coders that wrote programs that
> machines understood. It cost this entire Semantic Web project 15 lost
> years. Even today, as already expressed, Turtle and JSON-LD aren't
> official standards, so it remains quite easy to ridicule the "Semantic
> Web" phrase when RDF/XML remains the official standard i.e., default
> used in all examples re. OWL and RDF Schema etc..
> 
> 
> Many of us have been there and done that, many times over, during the
> last 15 years re. RDF. We don't want to ever go back to the mess
> created
> by RDF/XML, never ever.
> 
> If you are using RDF then there shouldn't be any debating it virtues,
> especially when it is already being used to drive the semantics
> expressed by the Hydra vocabulary/ontology.
> 
> >
> >
> >>  From my vantage point, you are already using the RDF model
> >> because I can already spot your exploitation of its prowess. Of
> course,
> >> that doesn't necessarily imply you are embracing Linked Data
> >> principles, but that's a secondary matter at this juncture :-)
> > Well, Hydra tries to finally combine REST and Linked Data into a
> practical
> > approach. So I try to fully "embrace the Linked Data principles".
> 
> Okay, but as I said, its secondary for now. When we come to this
> bridge,
> I am sure we can get over any concerns with ease and good examples
> etc..
> You are knowledgeable enough about these matters for this to be a
> simple affair :-)