W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > February 2010

Re: Terminology when talking about Linked Data

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 14:57:51 -0500
Message-ID: <4B7C4A3F.3060307@openlinksw.com>
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
CC: "public-lod@w3.org" <public-lod@w3.org>
Pat Hayes wrote:
>
> On Feb 17, 2010, at 11:36 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>
>> Pat Hayes wrote:
>>>
>>> On Feb 17, 2010, at 6:37 AM, Dan Brickley wrote:
>>>
>>>> ... . RDF was originally
>>>> standardised as a metadata system, a mechanism for finding stuff ...
>>>> whether that stuff was photos, videos, HTML pages, excel spreadsheets,
>>>> SQL databases, 3d models. ...
>>>
>>> Really? That was not the impression I got when I first got involved 
>>> with it. In fact, I asked explicitly for clarification, at the first 
>>> F2F in Sebastopol: is RDF intended to be metadata for Web 'objects', 
>>> or is it supposed to be a notation for describing **things in 
>>> general**? And the resounding chorus from the WG was the latter, 
>>> most definitely not the former. (Which is also what Guha told me 
>>> right after the very first RDF speclet was first released.)
>> Yes, and I think you've inadvertently unveiled a subtle distinctin 
>> between Linked Data and the earlier Semantic Web Project goals.
>>
>> At the heart of HTTP based Linked Data lies the use of the generic 
>> HTTP URIs duality ( Identity/Access ) to actually deliver metadata 
>> for Data Objects on an HTTP network.
>
> Fine, I understand. But then you can't "link" to a non-Web object.  
> But I was chiefly commenting on DanB's historical recollections.
>
>>> And that is why I designed the semantics based on a logical model 
>>> theory rather than a computational annotation system. If RDF was 
>>> supposed to be primarily a mechanism for finding stuff, then we 
>>> designed it wrong.
>> I think you kinda attested to some of that in your blogic 
>> presentation :-)
>
> Ah no, what I was talking about there were just plain bugs and bad 
> design decisions. But this is a more fundamental split, between RDF as 
> a description format and RDF as a purely metadata tool intended to aid 
> Web searching. 
But, don't structured resource descriptions aid resource discovery, 
courtesy of relations?
> Maybe these are compatible, but AFAIK the original, intended, design 
> goal for RDF was the former.
Methinks they are compatible, even if we arrived here via unintended 
effects, of the positive kind :-)

Kingsley
>
> Pat
>
>>
>> Kingsley
>>>
>>> Pat
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>> IHMC                                     (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973
>>> 40 South Alcaniz St.           (850)202 4416   office
>>> Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fax
>>> FL 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile
>>> phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Kingsley Idehen          President & CEO OpenLink Software     Web: 
>> http://www.openlinksw.com
>> Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
>> Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> IHMC                                     (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973
> 40 South Alcaniz St.           (850)202 4416   office
> Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fax
> FL 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile
> phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
>
>
>
>
>
>


-- 

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 Wednesday, 17 February 2010 19:58:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 31 March 2013 14:24:25 UTC