W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ldp@w3.org > March 2013

Re: Section 4: LDPR/non-LDPR formal definitions

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 15:43:15 -0400
Message-ID: <5150A8D3.3000502@openlinksw.com>
To: public-ldp@w3.org
On 3/25/13 2:41 PM, Erik Wilde wrote:
>
>> Inspired by AtomPub a media type like text/turtle;type=entry (to
>> indicate all triples are about the same informal/abstract entity), would
>> be enough to distinguish between the clients intentions.
>
> sort of. but type is not a registered media type parameter of turtle, 
> so you cannot actually to that. also, my suggestion would be to use 
> profile instead 
> (http://dret.typepad.com/dretblog/2013/03/on-profiles.html), but that 
> one isn't a registered media type parameter either. but yes, what 
> you're proposing is probably what we will have to do, given that it's 
> unlikely that we will actually expose the LDP-ness of LDP resources at 
> the media type level.

Why not?

What's wrong with media type: application/ld+turtle, 
application/ldp+turtle or whatever else to end this most recursive line 
of discussion and debate?

A media type for RDF based Linked Data is more explicit than existing 
media types such as text/turtle, application/rdf+xml etc..

Linked Data is about a combined *application* of RESTful data 
interaction patterns and the RDF model for expressing and representing 
entity relationship semantics (some call this the RBox), entity types 
(some call this the Tbox), and entity instances (some call this the ABox).

As I've said before [1], there is a little grey area that is easily 
addressed via a media- or content-type for RDF based Linked Data.

RDF based Linked Data basic behavior is simple: URIs resolve to 
Documents that Describe what said URI denotes (i.e, the aforementioned 
URI's referent).

RDF != Linked Data and this fact is something we can't skirt around. It 
bites on both sides i.e., it hurts RDF believers and non believers 
alike, as these recursive threads demonstrate.

The rules for RDF based Linked Data are simple:

1. URIs denote entities
2. URIs resolve to Entity Description Documents
3. Entity Description Documents are comprised of Entity Relationship 
Graph based Content
4. Entity Relationship Graph based content is constrained by the RDF 
Data Model
5. The RDF Model enables the construction of Entity Relationship Graph 
based content endowed with explicit (rather than implicit) 
machine-readable Entity Relationship Semantics
6. Entity Type Definitions and Relationship Semantics can packed into a 
Vocabulary, Ontology, or Data Dictionary -- which enables loose coupling 
of instance data (Abox), type definition data (Tbox), and relations 
definition data (Rbox).

This is all very old stuff bar the ingenuity inherent in HTTP URIs as 
exemplified by today's World Wide Web (a killer application of HTTP URIs).

Links:

1. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp/2013Mar/0036.html -- 
resolving this RDF and Linked Data conflation problem via a content-type 
for the RESTafari .

-- 

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







Received on Monday, 25 March 2013 19:43:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:03:10 UTC