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 13:41:01 -0400
Message-ID: <4E319F2D.3000305@openlinksw.com>
To: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
CC: public-linked-json@w3.org, public-lod@w3.org
On 7/28/11 1:33 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> 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/
>

Danny,

I forgot to add the link to the G+ post [1].

Link:

1. https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/posts/EbBgmQsx5Tq -- G+ 
plus post (go to about 37 mins into the presentation for context re. 
TimBL and Ted false dichotomy matters)

-- 

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 17:41:33 UTC

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