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 17:41:27 -0400
Message-ID: <5150C487.20002@openlinksw.com>
To: public-ldp@w3.org
On 3/25/13 4:16 PM, Henry Story wrote:
> On 25 Mar 2013, at 21:01, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote:
>
>> On 3/25/13 3:50 PM, Erik Wilde wrote:
>>> hello kingsley.
>>>
>>> On 2013-03-25 12:43 , Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>>>> On 3/25/13 2:41 PM, Erik Wilde wrote:
>>>>> 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?
>>> absolutely nothing is wrong with that in my mind; it's actually the opposite: i think that's what we should be doing from the REST perspective. however, it seemed to me that whenever i suggested that it would be good to expose LDP semantics on the media type level, the majority opinion in the WG was that this is not what you normally do for RDF-based designs, and that instead we should be exposing generic RDF media types.
> Ok. I understand your reasoning now. But I don't agree that this is a good reason to do this. RDF was
> always meant to be used as linked data, just as HTML was always meant to have <a href=""> links be
> followed.

No, that isn't as clear cut as many would like to assume.

RDF is primarily concerned with enabling the construction of entity 
relationship graphs comprised of statements that describe entities 
denoted by IRIs. This particular data model ensures the aforementioned 
graphs are endowed with explicit (rather than implicit) human and 
machine comprehensible entity relationship semantics. To date, It has 
never (and more than likely never will) addressed the issue of URI 
de-reference i.e., to denote doesn't imply denotation in a manner that 
resolves to a description document, for a given URI's referent.

If my claim above is correct, then it implies the following:

1. You can produce RDF documents comprised of graphs where identifiers 
don't resolve at all -- that burden is handled by an RDF processor 
providing a UI into the graph
2. You can produce RDF documents comprised of graphs where identifiers 
don't resolve at Web-scale -- ditto
3. You can produce RDF documents comprised of graph where identifiers 
resolve at Web-scale -- ditto .

TimBL didn't envisage Linked Data as a result of RDF, he saw RDF as a 
mechanism for Linked Data. Here's some evidence since he keeps notes on 
the Web meticulously:

1. http://www.nic.funet.fi/index/FUNET/history/internet/w3c/Image1.gif 
-- illustrating the entity and entity description document relationship 
as part of the origin Web design
2. http://www.w3.org/2000/01/sw/DevelopmentProposal -- Semantic Web 
Proposal (note: the reference in the opening paragraph re. emulating 
what's been done via HTML)
3. http://dig.csail.mit.edu/breadcrumbs/node/71 -- tweaking FOAF for 
Linked Data
4. http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html -- showcasing use of 
RDF and SPARQL for producing and exploiting Web-scale Linked Data .

>   As LDP gets deployed the overwhelming amount of published data will follow this pattern. Sites
> that don't do this are pretty useless, and so will just die out, or not being linked to, be invisible.

That's a point I simply don't agree with.

Nobody needs to win or lose, we just need clarity.

The biggest problem with RDF has always been conflation laden unclarity.


Kingsley
>
>>> cheers,
>>>
>>> dret.
>>>
>>>
>> Okay, for the record, I support exposing RDF based Linked Data semantics via a specific media type. If I've been on the other side in the past, here is my official position retraction :-)
>>
>> Generic RDF media types are problematic because they perpetuate a problematic misconception about RDF and Linked Data. To denote something with a URI != denoting something with a URI that resolves to the description of said URI's referent.
>>
>> Conflating RDF simply undermines RDF's tangible virtues. IMHO., if LDP truly wants to deliver something that's useful it should seize the moment by killing off this eternal RDF & Linked Data conflation problem via a Linked Data or Linked Data Profile (LDP) media type.
>>
>> RDF based Linked Data != RDF.
>> RDF based Linked Data is something that RDF enables you produce, most effectively.
>>
>> -- 
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> Social Web Architect
> http://bblfish.net/
>


-- 

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 21:41:53 UTC

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