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 18:12:32 -0400
Message-ID: <5150CBD0.5030203@openlinksw.com>
To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
CC: public-ldp@w3.org
On 3/25/13 4:42 PM, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
> On 25 Mar 2013, at 20:36, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote:
>> RDF suffers from an over conflated narrative. This has been an ongoing problem for too many years.
> And changing RDF's media type fixes this how?
>
> Richard
>
>
I am not suggesting a change of RDF's media types. I am suggesting the 
creation of a media type specifically for RDF based Linked Data. Why? 
Because, RDF != Linked Data or RDF Linked Data. Thus, for those tools 
that believe RDF == RDF based Linked Data, existing RDF media types are 
fine. On the other hand, for those that think otherwise, there's also a 
solution in the form of a specific media type for RDF based Linked Data. 
The definition of this media type will spell out URI usage and 
behavioral expectations outlined TimBL's meme.

RDF enables the construction of RDF (model) based Linked Data that 
scales to the Web, subject to specific URI behavior i.e., indirection 
(explicitly via hashless HTTP URIs or implicitly via hash based HTTP 
URIs) aided denotation that binds URI referent to its description document.

-- 

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 22:12:55 UTC

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