Re: is linked data about RDF or EAV or just structured data?

Folks 

How about we put some of these to vote as individual axioms?  So, of the group agrees, I'll send out individual proposals for axioms that will have 1-2 sentences and folks can vote with the traditional +1/-1/0?

I think such axioms can give us the proper technical constraints around the use-cases if approved

Best

On Aug 7, 2012, at 7:30 AM, "Wilde, Erik" <Erik.Wilde@emc.com> wrote:

> hello kingsley.
> 
> On 2012-08-07 16:17 , "Kingsley Idehen" <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote:
>> Modulo RDF re. your comments above, since it isn't a format, a media
>> type still boils down to an entity-attribute-value or attribute=value
>> structure i.e., 3-tuple or 2-tuple. It just documents the fact in prose
>> as part of the mime type.
> 
> i really don' understand how you get to this conclusion. look at the IETF
> registry of media types and you'll see an amazingly wide array of all
> kinds of models and metamodels people have registered. you find trees,
> maybe jeni has even bothered to register her LMNL "overlapping tree"
> format, and all kinds of more generalized or more specialized data models.
> what brings you to the conclusion that media types are in one of these two
> simple classes you are listing? the media type world is so much more
> colorful than that.
> 
> i guess i'll stop wasting mailing list bandwidth for now, since you're
> going to be on vacation and nobody else seems to get engaged in this
> debate anyway. i am still failing to see, though, where those assertions
> you are making are coming from, and for my personal vocabulary management,
> i'll conclude that
> 
> - there is the "Linked Data is based on RDF" perspective which is shared
> by most people, then
> - there's the "linked data is just data that's linked on the web"
> perspective of ashok that i also had for a while, and then
> - there's your "Linked Data is not RDF, but EAV" perspective, that is not
> something i had heard of before.
> 
> cheers,
> 
> dret.
> 
>