Re: LDP interfaces in Java (based on Jena and JAX-RS)

Idehen -

[Idehen]
Is it accurate is I summarize all of this as boiling down to decoupling 
RDF from Linked Data?
[Reza]
I think this is ABSOLUTELY key to me.  I confirm that, from my 
perspective, this decoupling is crucial to a standardization effort.  
Doesn't mean that RDF is excluded or even that it is not a focus, rather 
that it is treated separately in the standardization process.  I 
mentioned this on the call this morning: Prov has done a good job of 
this decoupling Prov-DM from Prov-O (OWL).

To this end, and your other comments, I would propose that we arrive at 
a taxonomy that has, at least, the following -

LDP-DM - Some Data Model that represents the domain we're trying to 
address independent of any other sem-web standards (RDF, SPARQL, etc.)
LDP-RDF - Linkage of RDF to LDP-DM
[Others]

This is the model that Prov went with and I'm not saying anything 
original (essentially copying from that WG).  But, I think it was the 
right approach: decouple your data/domain model that represent the 
necessary abstractions from the various other lower level pieces and 
apparatus.

Best.

On 8/6/12 8:57 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> On 8/6/12 11:13 AM, Erik.Wilde@emc.com wrote:
>> hello ashok.
>>
>> On 2012-08-06 17:03 , "Ashok Malhotra" <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com> 
>> wrote:
>>> I am involved in a couple of standards groups where the data is in 
>>> XML or
>>> JSON
>>> and accessed using REST.  These folks are wrestling with he same 
>>> kinds of
>>> issues
>>> that motivated us to the start the LDP WG:  collections, large 
>>> amounts of
>>> data,
>>> concurrent updates, etc.
>> yup, that's exactly where we are, and what we hoped to see addressed by
>> the working group. however, when i raised the issue that with the 
>> move to
>> REST it would make sense to remove the exclusive focus on RDF, the
>> majority of the WG was of the opinion that we should only focus on RDF.
>>
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2012Jul/0029.html 
>> is one
>> of the threads in the archive where i was proposing to include more of
>> REST. since i have tried already, and should probably tread lightly
>> because of my status as a co-chair, i decided to not try anymore and
>> assume that the WG is focusing on RDF. you're of course free to discuss
>> the issue again, but it seems that so far the majority of the WG is 
>> happy
>> with the RDF focus.
>>
>> cheers,
>>
>> dret.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Is it accurate is I summarize all of this as boiling down to 
> decoupling RDF from Linked Data?
>
> As I stated in an earlier post, Linked Data is about:
>
> 1. URIs as denotation (naming) mechanism for entities (web, 
> real-world, or abstract)
> 2. URIs/URLs as identifiers for web resources that describe URI referents
> 3. Structured Data representation constrained by the EAV/CR or RDF 
> data models + URI behavior described above.
>
>
> There's an artificial barrier created between Linked Data and REST 
> whenever one conflates it with RDF -- which isn't about REST.
>
> To conclude, shouldn't this group address the decoupling of Linked and 
> RDF i.e., make the coupling loose? There's everything to gain and 
> nothing to lose. In a sense, the first tangible deliverable from this 
> group could be an official decoupling of Linked Data and RDF. Such a 
> decoupling will ultimately compliment work that will emerge from the 
> current RDF workgroup etc..
>
>

Received on Monday, 6 August 2012 17:16:42 UTC