W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-linked-json@w3.org > June 2011

Re: Property-name scoping

From: Patrick Logan <patrickdlogan@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 20:39:08 -0700
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=g_TUBAndSM2aWDy7hhj0wUFUq7w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Cc: public-linked-json@w3.org
If you are interested in serialization of graph structures generally
without specific semantics, that's fine. I don't find that so
important, obviously YMMV.


On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 4:00 PM, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote:
> On 6/29/11 10:24 PM, Patrick Logan wrote:
>>
>> That's an interesting presentation. Most of what I saw was familiar to
>> me. But I just swallowed it whole and have not fully digested it.
>> Nevertheless, the main things it speaks to *here* are:
>>
>> 1. RDF is more than syntax
>> 2. Having a JSON serialization for RDF is not going to change the
>> world for anyone
>> 3. Although it would be handy for some of us, in some cases
>
> How about: we can make Linked Data graphs using a JSON based syntax. We can
> use JSON to serialize Linked Data graphs. In both cases, Zero mention of
> RDF. At the end of the day, RDF is really an orthogonal matter re. Linked
> Data. There is nothing about Linked Data that's specific to RDF (syntax,
> model that underlies sytnax, serialization formats). There have and swill
> always be many mechanisms for expressing and serializing EAV/SPO based
> graphs.
>
> KIngsley
>>
>> -Patrick
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Kingsley Idehen<kidehen@openlinksw.com>
>>  wrote:
>>>
>>> On 6/29/11 4:22 PM, Patrick Logan wrote:
>>>
>>> On Jun 28, 2011 1:27 AM, "Kingsley Idehen"<kidehen@openlinksw.com>
>>>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Why does it need "RDF" in there? Ditto "Microformats" and "Microdata" ?
>>>> Those are>  all about alternative syntaxes that can be used to achieve
>>>> the
>>>> same goal.
>>>
>>> I can see that is true if by RDF you mean an RDF serialization. When I
>>> see
>>> the term "RDF" I interpret that to mean the whole of the semantic web
>>> standards, which are at least as much about (varying levels of)
>>> semantics.
>>>
>>> Do most people view "RDF" as syntax rather than semantics?
>>>
>>> Therein lies the problem.
>>>
>>> I encourage you to digest this John. F. Sowa presentation [1].
>>>
>>> I would also say MF and MD have their own (more limited) semantics, and
>>> they
>>> do not completely coincide.
>>>
>>> What am I not getting here? These do not seem significantly
>>> interchangeable
>>> at all.
>>>
>>> Digest the Sowa presentation :-)
>>>
>>>
>>> Links:
>>>
>>> 1. http://www.slideshare.net/kidehen/iss-1 -- Integrating Semantic
>>> Systems
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Kingsley Idehen
>>> President&  CEO
>>> OpenLink Software
>>> Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
>>> Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
>>> Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
> Regards,
>
> Kingsley Idehen
> President&  CEO
> OpenLink Software
> Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
> Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
> Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 30 June 2011 03:39:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:34 GMT