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 18:24:25 -0400
Message-ID: <5150CE99.7060403@openlinksw.com>
To: public-ldp@w3.org
On 3/25/13 6:15 PM, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
> On 25 Mar 2013, at 22:01, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote:
>>> Who, besides implementers of RDF based Linked Data solutions, cares about the text/turtle media type anyway?
>> Methinks: implementers of RDF based solutions where Linked Data principles aren't a concern.
> The only thing I can think of here is triple stores that bulk load data from RDF dumps. These don't really care about media types anyway. Dumps often come as application/gzip anyway. Such apps certainly don't benefit from a distinction between “Turtle with LDP semantics” and “Turtle with pure RDF-as-graph semantics”.
>
>>> What I'm hearing is that all current users of text/turtle should abandon text/turtle (or only use it in some hypothetical non-linked-data way), and they all should use text/ldp+turtle instead, because there is so much confusion around text/turtle.
>> No, I am suggesting that those that process text/turtle should continue to do so. That profile is a mixed bag of RDF and RDF based Linked Data solution providers.
> Well, we could start enumerating the contents of that bag now, and look in detail at how that media type change would affect them. I think it would cause more breakage than benefits.
>
>> I am suggesting that RDF based Linked Data providers and the RESTafari who are both connected by REST, URIs, and concerned about semantics (at the protocol and content levels) meet halfway via the proposed media type.
> The RESTafarians just need to open their minds a bit to embrace a point of view that interaction semantics can also be specified in RDF vocabularies :-)
>
>>> This is burning down the house because we're too lazy to do the dishes.
>> Kinda think it's the other way around though. By that I mean: RDF based Linked Data should have always had a media type which is akin to actually doing the dishes.
> I think that text/turtle is that media type, or rather, can be it.

It could be, but I fear we would then stall its current progress by 
requesting incorporation of Linked Data de-reference behavior 
expectations into its current IANA registration.

>
>> My permarant about RDF != Linked Data is all about this subtle piece of confusion that's ensued as a result of not having a specific media type for RDF based Linked Data. This consufion always adversely effects the escape velocity of RDF based Linked Data re., tools developers and end-users.
>>
>> We are really close to killing off all of these nuance laced distractions :-)
> I don't know.
>
> I'm not looking forward at all to a potential future where I need to think about whether I want to publish my new vocabulary using the text/turtle or text/ldp+turtle media type to avoid breakage.

text/turtle stays as is.
application/ldp+turtle or application/ld+turtle is what I believe will 
deliver the desired clarity to those outside the core Semantic Web and 
Linked Data communities.

We can do this :-)

Kingsley

>
> Best,
> Richard
>
>
>
>>
>> Kingsley
>>> Best,
>>> Richard
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Links:
>>>>
>>>> 1. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp/2013Mar/0036.html -- outlining the expected behavior for RESTafari and RDF heavy types.
>>>> 2. http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html -- TimBL's Linked Data meme.
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> Richard
>>>> Kingsley
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> -- 
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>


-- 

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 22:24:48 UTC

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