W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > June 2009

Re: http://ld2sd.deri.org/lod-ng-tutorial/

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 08:35:57 -0400
Message-ID: <4A40CC2D.5010809@openlinksw.com>
To: martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org
CC: Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>, mark.birbeck@webbackplane.com, david@dbooth.org, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
Martin,

[SNIP]
>
>
> As Kingsley said - deceptively simple solutions are cheap in the 
> beginning but can be pretty costly in the long run.
I meant: "Deceptively Simple" is good. While  "Simply Simple" is bad due 
to inherent architectural myopia obscured by initial illusion of 
cheapness etc..
>
> What made the Web so powerful is that its Architecture is extremely 
> well-thought underneath the first cover of simplicity.
That's what I meant by: "Deceptively Simple", architectural apex is 
narrow (simple) while the base is broad (a pyramid) :-)
> Exactly the opposite of "I will use this pragmatic pattern until it 
> breaks" but instead 
That's what I meant by: "Simple Simple", architectural apex is broad 
while the base is narrow (think inverted pyramid).
> "architectural beauty for eternity".
Yes! That what you get with: "Deceptively Simple" :-)


Kingsley
>
> Just look at the http specs. The fact that you can do a nice 303 is 
> because someone in the distant past very cleverly designed a protocol 
> goes well beyond the pragmatic "I have a URL (sic!) and want to fetch 
> the Web page in HTML (sic!)".
>
> So when being proud of being the "pragmatic guys" keep in mind that 
> nothing is as powerful in practice as something that is theoretically 
> consistent.
>
> Best
> Martin
>
>
> Michael Hausenblas wrote:
>> Martin,
>>
>>   
>>> (moving this to LOD public as suggested)
>>>     
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>>   
>>> General note: I am quite unhappy with a general movement in parts of the
>>> LOD community to clash with the OWL world even when that is absolutely
>>> unnecessary. It is just a bad engineering practice to break with
>>> existing standards unless you can justify the side-effects. And this
>>> stubborn "i don't care what the OWL specs says" pattern is silly, in
>>> particular if the real motivation of many proponents of this approach is
>>> that they don't want or cannot read the OWL specs.
>>>     
>>
>> I don't think it is particular helpful to insult people, to utter
>> imputations and judge a book by its cover. If we can agree to stop using
>> such terminology I'm more than happy to continue the discussion.
>>
>>   
>>> On the other hand - what is your pain with  using RDFa in a way so that
>>> the extracted RDF model is equivalent to the model from an RDF/XML or N3
>>> serialization? Why this absolutely arbitrary "we LOD guys don't like
>>> owl:import ( we don't like OWL anyway, you know?), so we simply omit it"
>>> behavior?
>>>
>>> It is just silly to break with established standards just for saving 1 -
>>> 2 triples.
>>>     
>>
>> Ok, so, again, for the chaps who didn't get the entire story. Martin
>> champions the use of owl:import (and wants to see it written down as a good
>> practice?) in linked data.
>>
>> My take on this is as follows: when one takes the linked data principles and
>> applies them in practice (esp. referring to #2, here) there are naturally a
>> dozens implementation choices as the principles simply leave room for
>> interpretation. 
>>
>> The people here know me from the RDFa TF, from the AWWSW TF and last but not
>> least from the LOD community as a simple-minded, pragmatic guy, I hope ;)
>>
>> So, my hunch would be: the market will make the final decision, not a Martin
>> Hepp and also not a Michael Hausenblas. If people think this is a clever
>> idea, they will use it when publishing linked data. AFAIK, to date the usage
>> of owl:import in linked data is close to non-existing (even in pre-LOD times
>> it seemed to be not very common [1]).
>>
>> Concluding, I'd propose - respecting the nature of good *practice* - once we
>> notice a serious usage of owl:import in LOD data, we may want to rehash this
>> topic.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>       Michael
>>
>> [1] http://ebiquity.umbc.edu/blogger/2007/06/15/how-owlimport-is-used/
>>
>>   
>
> -- 
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> martin hepp
> e-business & web science research group
> universitaet der bundeswehr muenchen
>
> e-mail:  mhepp@computer.org
> phone:   +49-(0)89-6004-4217
> fax:     +49-(0)89-6004-4620
> www:     http://www.unibw.de/ebusiness/ (group)
>          http://www.heppnetz.de/ (personal)
> skype:   mfhepp 
> twitter: mfhepp
>
> Check out the GoodRelations vocabulary for E-Commerce on the Web of Data!
> ========================================================================
>
> Webcast:
> http://www.heppnetz.de/projects/goodrelations/webcast/
>
> Talk at the Semantic Technology Conference 2009: 
> "Semantic Web-based E-Commerce: The GoodRelations Ontology"
> http://tinyurl.com/semtech-hepp
>
> Tool for registering your business:
> http://www.ebusiness-unibw.org/tools/goodrelations-annotator/
>
> Overview article on Semantic Universe:
> http://tinyurl.com/goodrelations-universe
>
> Project page and resources for developers:
> http://purl.org/goodrelations/
>
> Tutorial materials:
> Tutorial at ESWC 2009: The Web of Data for E-Commerce in One Day: A Hands-on Introduction to the GoodRelations Ontology, RDFa, and Yahoo! SearchMonkey
>
> http://www.ebusiness-unibw.org/wiki/GoodRelations_Tutorial_ESWC2009
>
>
>
>   


-- 


Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	      Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
President & CEO 
OpenLink Software     Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Received on Tuesday, 23 June 2009 12:36:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 31 March 2013 14:24:21 UTC