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

Ok. Thanks.  I think we're making progress.  Here is my case:

The largest repositories of data that exist today are NOT provided as 
RDF so far as I know (clearly, this is a subjective statement and open 
to being corrected).  For example, Data.gov which is a giant repository 
of data, is not in RDF.  While RPI does provide facilities to make it 
into RDF, there are licensing issues, etc. around it 
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ for RPI's version).

So, my belief, at least, is that it would actually be more beneficial to 
the entire effort and adoption of the spec if RDF/XML is made optional 
because it will entice implementers to "back-into" full implementation 
versus having to do waterfall-style full implementation which may be 
impractical for smaller entities and/or projects that need to show value 
to get traction.  So, the concern is rooted in at least one practical 
perspective.  If we only have a handful of large entities and niche 
players implement a standard, it's not a very successful standard.

There are huge benefits to a standard without requiring a serialization 
format: namely removal of all abstraction impedance mismatches that can 
lead to data loss, etc.  I see that as the main benefit of a standard 
for Linked Data versus the serialization recommendation.  In practical 
terms, I may need to hook into different systems and write parsers, but 
the parsers are trivial.  I'm not advocating that we encourage this, but 
that we allow it.

Best.

On 8/7/12 1:14 PM, Arnaud Le Hors wrote:
> Well, the submission is what it is and, yes, it is indeed cast in 
> stone. But I think what you're really asking is whether the WG must 
> produce a spec that is the same as the submission and the answer is 
> no. If that were the case there wouldn't be much point in having a WG.
>
> The WG is chartered to take the submission and use it as a starting 
> point to produce deliverables that satisfy the charter. In this 
> process anything can be changed. The default is simply not to.
>
> While the submission addresses part of the charter it certainly 
> doesn't address all of it and for that matter IBM doesn't claim 
> otherwise.
>
> What the WG needs to do is identify the gaps and fill them in, fix 
> what's seen as broken, and improve it as much as possible. I think 
> there's plenty to do just there. :-)
>
> The requirement for RDF/XML in the submission is in the specification 
> (link #1 in the list you posted):
>
> 4.2.2 BPR servers MUST provide an application/rdf+xmlrepresentation of 
> the requested BPR.
>
> So, if you want to change this requirement you will need to make the 
> case for it and get the WG to agree. But you're certainly free to do so.
>
> On a practical level, the motivation for this whole effort in the 
> first place was to increase interoperability among RDF implementations 
> by defining a level of compliance that is greater than what is 
> currently defined by the existing set of RDF standards. From that 
> point of view, I don't see how we can get away with not requiring at 
> least one specific serialization.
> --
> Arnaud  Le Hors - Chair of the LDP WG
>
>
> "Reza B'Far (Oracle)" <reza.bfar@oracle.com> wrote on 08/07/2012 
> 12:30:15 PM:
>
> > From: "Reza B'Far (Oracle)" <reza.bfar@oracle.com>
> > To: public-ldp-wg@w3.org,
> > Date: 08/07/2012 12:32 PM
> > Subject: Re: is linked data about RDF or EAV or just structured data?
> >
> > Arnaud -
> >
> > Yes. My concern is the requirement of an implementation to support
> > RDF\XML as opposed to leaving serialization optional for the
> > implementer so long as the data model is fully supported.  So, I
> > guess I see that as a problem with submission if submission includes
> > that a requirement for compliant implementation of the standard
> > (which is not clear to me: I don't see the requirement of RDF/XML in
> > the link you sent - but, if this is explicitly mentioned somewhere,
> > I would appreciate a pointer and your patience along with it).
> >
> > I have read the link you sent below as well as the three embedded
> > links within it:
> > 1. Linked Data Basic Profile 1.0
> > 2. Linked Data Basic Profile Use Cases and Requirements
> > 3. Linked Data Basic Profile 1.0 RDF Schema
> > So, are you saying that the "submission" is set in stone in
> > technical terms at this point?  If so, what is left to do for the WG?
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > On 8/7/12 12:03 PM, Arnaud Le Hors wrote:
> > Are you saying you're concerned about requiring an implementation to
> > support RDF/XML?
> >
> > I'm afraid the level of this discussion is too high to really lead
> > to anything productive. It would be more productive to talk about
> > the submission [1] and explain exactly what concerns you if anything.
> >
> > This is true for all of us actually. We're not starting from a blank
> > sheet of paper trying to figure out what we're supposed to do. We
> > have a proposal (the submission) and a charter. The discussion
> > should be based on those two components and revolve around the
> > fundamental question: "does the submission adequately address the
> > charter?" If not, what are the problems with it and what do we need
> > to change to fix it?
> >
> > Putting my IBM hat on, I'll say that the submission depends on RDF/
> > XML because this currently is the only standard format for RDF we
> > could depend on but the submission encourages support for Turtle and
> > this is oclearly within the charter. Other such formats could be 
> considered.
> >
> > Regards.
> >
> > [1] http://www.w3.org/Submission/2012/02/
> > --
> > Arnaud  Le Hors - Software Standards Architect - IBM Software Group
> >
> >
> > "Reza B'Far (Oracle)" <reza.bfar@oracle.com> wrote on 08/07/2012 
> 11:17:52 AM:
> >
> > > From: "Reza B'Far (Oracle)" <reza.bfar@oracle.com>
> > > To: public-ldp-wg@w3.org,
> > > Date: 08/07/2012 11:22 AM
> > > Subject: Re: is linked data about RDF or EAV or just structured data?
> > >
> > > Alright.  I'll let other folks raise the concern so I'm not flooding
> > > email.  It seems that what you're saying is that the WG is chartered
> > > with building a standard that will leverage ALL of RDF (not just the
> > > data model part, but everything else too) in a mutually exclusive
> > > way to other options (so as to force the implementers to have to
> > > support, for example, RDF\XML).  That is a serious concern for me,
> > > but if no one else thinks so, I'll rest my case.
> > >
> > > Regards
> > >
> > > On 8/7/12 11:13 AM, Arnaud Le Hors wrote:
> > > Err. I must admit not to be sure where you're going with that 
> question.
> > >
> > > Rather than trying to paraphrase the charter and risking to
> > > introduce some inconsistency I would say that the answer to your
> > > question is in the very text you quoted. :-)
> > > --
> > > Arnaud  Le Hors - Co-chair of the LDP WG
> > >
> > >
> > > "Reza B'Far (Oracle)" <reza.bfar@oracle.com> wrote on 08/07/2012
> > 10:50:21 AM:
> > >
> > > > From: "Reza B'Far (Oracle)" <reza.bfar@oracle.com>
> > > > To: public-ldp-wg@w3.org,
> > > > Date: 08/07/2012 10:53 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: is linked data about RDF or EAV or just structured 
> data?
> > > >
> > > > Arnaud -
> > > >
> > > > I read RDF in the charter and your email (as well as others) as the
> > > > literal meaning of the RDF spec which is the superset of RDF data
> > > > model, RDF/XML, etc. (everything here - http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/
> > > > REC-rdf-schema-20040210/)
> > > >
> > > > So, I'm trying to reconcile what you referred to in your email about
> > > > the charter (http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/charter) with RDF spec (
> > > > http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-schema-20040210/).  To that end,
> > > > it would be EXTREMELY helpful [I would deem necessary, but that
> > > > would need consensus as you've pointed out] if the the refinement
> > > > you've put in your email becomes explicit: that the dependency is on
> > > > the part of RDF set of specifications which represents the data
> > > > model versus the other stuff (RDF/XML, etc.).
> > > >
> > > > Here is a question that I have during reconciliation -
> > > > Charter says: " RDF, the Resource Description Framework, is a W3C
> > > Recommended
> > > > general technique for conveying information. It has a handful of
> > > > syntaxes, including RDF/XML, RDFa, and Turtle, any of which can be
> > > > used to transmit RDF statements. The items about which information
> > > > is expressed in RDF documents are identified with URIs (eg, http://
> > > > example.com/products/Widget-71) but the existing RDF specifications
> > > > do not cover dereferencing them. RDF is the basis for Linked 
> Data and
> > > > the Semantic Web. "
> > > > What is "RDF" above?  Just the data model (abstractions and concepts
> > > > of triples, etc.)? or does that include other things including 
> RDF\XML?
> > > >
> > > > Regards
> > > >
> > > > On 8/7/12 9:52 AM, Arnaud Le Hors wrote:
> > > > Reza,
> > > >
> > > > I think we would gain from setting some common terminology we all
> > > > use consistently so we can better understand each other.
> > > >
> > > > It seems that when you write "RDF" you mean the RDF/XML format, is
> > > > that correct?
> > > >
> > > > When I say RDF, I mean the RDF data model, which can be serialized
> > > > using a variety of formats, including RDF/XML, Turtle, and others.
> > > > I think this is consistent with the way the W3C uses the term, even
> > > > though it's true that many still confuses RDF and RDF/XML because of
> > > > the initial introduction of RDF via the RDF/XML format.
> > > >
> > > > This being said, the charter is clear about the dependency on RDF -
> > > > the data model -, while recognizing the existence of the various
> > > > formats. In that context, the RDF WG is working on a JSON format for
> > > > RDF and I certainly expect the LDP to allow for the use of that 
> format.
> > > >
> > > > At the same time, I don't expect this WG to try and define a ubber
> > > > platform that would address all possible data models.
> > > >
> > > > I hope that helps.
> > > > --
> > > > Arnaud  Le Hors - Co-chair of the LDP WG
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > From:        "Reza B'Far (Oracle)" <reza.bfar@oracle.com>
> > > > To:        public-ldp-wg@w3.org,
> > > > Date:        08/07/2012 08:40 AM
> > > > Subject:        Re: is linked data about RDF or EAV or just
> > > structured data?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Arnaud -
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for clarifying the W3C procedures.  Questions -
> > > > 1.        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?
> > > > 2.        If the discussion is about RDF being optional versus
> > > > required, I don't see that at odds with the charter.  Can you
> > > pleaseclarify?
> > > > 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
> > > ofthese 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
> > whichis 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.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >