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

On 7 Aug 2012, at 17:33, "Reza B'Far (Oracle)" <reza.bfar@oracle.com> wrote:

> Arnaud -
> 
> Thanks for clarifying the W3C procedures.  Questions -
> When I read the charter, it is not clear that anything outside of RDF is explicitly excluded.  For example, it is not clear that you could not use JSON, simply that RDF must be an option.  Are you saying that usage of RDF is explicitly made the goal by charter and that similar representations of triples must be explicitly forbidden to be used with the standard? 
Btw. I think that question contains a very obvious ambiguity, which is re-enforced by your statement below
"...it very clearly that the charter is explicitly excluding other representations of triples..." where you fail to distinguish representational formats from the model.

What is important is that any format used be automatically transformable using follow-your-nose principles to triples, e.g., as it would be with GRDDL. A consumer then GET the representation, apply the transform, and get the same triples he would have, without having ever encountered the format before.

There may be some requirement for some initial formats to be supported as a MUST, as we have done in the WebId XG http://webid.info/spec/ just because it helps to get the ball rolling. 

But I think having a GRDDL for atom would be very interesting use case, allowing all the atom tools to participate without any changes....
> If the discussion is about RDF being optional versus required, I don't see that at odds with the charter.  Can you please clarify?  
> Clearly, forming another working group or community group is not productive.  So, the way I'm reading your email, in a more straight forward way, it means that "welcome, you're new and don't understand that we're already far enough that we're requiring RDF to be part of the standard".  I'm fine with that.  I just want to understand it very clearly that the charter is explicitly excluding other representations of triples, etc. than RDF. and that, furthermore, the charter requires usage of mechanisms in RDF to build the specific requirements in Linked Data.
> Your clarification is appreciated.
> Regards.
> 
> On 8/7/12 8:03 AM, Arnaud Le Hors wrote:
>> Hi Reza, 
>> 
>> I'm not sure what exactly you'd like to vote on but I'd like to remind everyone of a few procedural points: 
>> 
>> 1. W3C thrives to build consensus. For that reason, decisions are only made by votes as a last resort, which isn't to say that we can't have polls to get a feeling of where people stand. 
>> 
>> 2. WGs aren't at liberty to redefine their scope. No vote can change that other than that of the Advisory Council after due process. 
>> 
>> The LDP charter is clear about the fact the Linked Data Platform this WG is to define is about RDF, using IBM's submission as the starting point. [1] 
>> 
>> So, while I find the discussion interesting, I have to say that If some of you are interested in defining a higher level type of platform that is independent of the RDF data model you should look to start a different group. The W3C now provides for Community Groups [2] that can be easily started. 
>> 
>> Regards. 
>> 
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/charter 
>> [2] http://www.w3.org/community/about/#cg
>> --
>> Arnaud  Le Hors - Co-chair of the LDP WG
>> 
>> 
>> "Reza B'far" <reza.bfar@oracle.com> wrote on 08/07/2012 07:40:06 AM:
>> 
>> > From: "Reza B'far" <reza.bfar@oracle.com> 
>> > To: "Wilde, Erik" <Erik.Wilde@emc.com>, 
>> > Cc: "public-ldp-wg@w3.org" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>, Kingsley Idehen 
>> > <kidehen@openlinksw.com> 
>> > Date: 08/07/2012 07:46 AM 
>> > Subject: 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.
>> > > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > 
> 

Social Web Architect
http://bblfish.net/