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

On 8/7/12 11:03 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.

The letters R-D-F or E-A-V are just literals. They don't really uniquely 
define the semantics of Linked Data. That's the fundamental issue at 
stake. Unfortunately, folks gravitate to literals and in the process the 
key semantics are lost.

Linked Data is about hyperlink enhanced structured data representation. 
It has very specific expectations re:

1. URI behaviour -- a URI must resolve to a resource that describes its 
referent via explicit or implicit indirection that enables a single URIs 
serve  (dually) as a denotation (naming) mechanism and web resource 
identifier
2. Data Model -- EAV or RDF doesn't matter, they are just literal 
denotations for entity-attribute-value or subject-predicate-object 
3-tuples (triples or triads).

If we don't get distracted by the letters R-D-F the real power of this 
kind of webby structured data representation will become easier for 
those that are spooked by the letters R-D-F to comprehend.

Circa. 2012 its quite surprising to see that RDF remains Linked Data 
distraction. For instance, @dret sees RDF and Linked Data conflation as 
the reason why Linked Data isn't RESTFul, and he is right, if we accept 
the fact the RDF doesn't in any way mandate the use of de-referencable 
URIs. It simply requires URIs for denotation of subjects, predicates, 
and objects (optionally) with regards to triples.

Kingsley
>
> 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.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >


-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen