W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > July 2011

Re: Defining "LD" (was Re: Branding?)

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 13:33:53 -0400
Message-ID: <4E319D81.9090401@openlinksw.com>
To: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
CC: public-linked-json@w3.org, public-lod@w3.org
On 7/28/11 1:21 PM, Danny Ayers wrote:
> [cc'ing public-lod@w3.org, this all seems to be drifting a little
> beyond JSON scope - see [1], [2], [3] ]
>
> "LD" meaning "Labeled and Directed" for JSON-LD works for me too.
>
> But I don't see a problem with defining linked data as being all-URIs
> (fully grounded, no bnodes or literals) just for spec purposes, it
> does at least emphasize the key feature (although I'm still a fan of
> bnodes :)
>
> Is a graph solely comprised of bnodes linked data? Presumably not.
>
> Is the result of merging an all-URI graph with an all-bnode graph
> linked data? In general parlance and practice yes, but it doesn't
> actually contain any more information than the first subgraph.
>
> So what happens with a graph which contains something like:
>
> <#uriA>  :p1 _:x .
> _:x :p2<#uriB>  .
>
> ?
>
> It's tricky, the individual triples don't entirely fit with the 4
> principles, together they kind-of do. But I certainly don't think we
> need to leap to skolemization to make sense of this.
>
> If the graph's on the Web as it should be, then it'll be named with a
> URI, so we could get a "quasi-entailment" along the lines of:
>
> <#graph>  :contains<#uriA>  .
> <#graph>  :contains<#uriB>  .
>
> or if you prefer to stay within the graph, something like:
>
> <#uriA>  :p1 _:x .
> _:x :p2<#uriB>  .
> =>
> <#uriA>  rdfs:seeAlso<#uriB>  .
>
> Dunno, this might all just be angels on a pinhead stuff...
>
> Cheers,
> Danny.
>
> [1] http://json-ld.org/spec/latest/
> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-linked-json
> [3] https://plus.google.com/102122664946994504971/posts/15eHTC3FA4A
>
>
Danny,

To save time, I'll just refer to Richard's post re. Blank Nodes [1].

We do want a WWW based Global Data Space that has a high amnesia 
quotient. Remember, your G+ response to my post [1] about TimBL and Ted 
Nelson being separated by a common desire (expressed in their visions) 
for a Global Linked Data space driven by Hyperlinks? You couldn't find a 
Reference to one of your old comment about the artificial dichotomy of 
their visions etc..

The WWW has a shortening effect on "attention" while upping the ante on 
"memory" and "recall". Therein lies the conundrum :-)

Links:

1. http://richard.cyganiak.de/blog/2011/03/blank-nodes-considered-harmful/

-- 

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, 28 July 2011 17:34:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 31 March 2013 14:24:34 UTC