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

Re: Facebook Linked Data

From: Sebastian Schaffert <sebastian.schaffert@salzburgresearch.at>
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 22:53:33 +0200
Cc: public-lod@w3.org, "semantic-web@w3.org >> \"semantic-web@w3.org\"" <semantic-web@w3.org>
Message-Id: <48C7B86C-CDD2-4A61-ADF6-4A5512125831@salzburgresearch.at>
To: Alvaro Graves <alvaro@graves.cl>
Dear all,

the point here is that this "philosophical" discussion is exactly the reason why Semantic Web/Linked Data is not really popular amongst developers. I am involved in the Semantic Web Community since 2001 and even I find it complex and impractical when it comes to really realising applications.

When I request a Linked Data resource, I expect what comes back to describe what I requested. Otherwise, I as a developer have no way of knowing how I should access the data: when I request a resource that is a document and I get back a description of a person (i.e. other subject) how should I know where to start?

Just to give you another example: when I request the resource http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#label, the request to http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema (without the #label, since this has to be removed by the browser) will return me the whole schema document. If I want to know about the requested rdfs:label, I will have to filter out the triples that are relevant. Now how would I know this in the case above?

The Semantic Web needs more developers, not more philosophical discussions. Developers need well-defined behaviour, and not "this service does it like this, and that service does it like that". This is not the interoperability promise the Semantic Web gives.

Greetings,

Sebastian

Am 26.09.2011 um 17:37 schrieb Alvaro Graves:

> We don't have to bring httpRange-14 and its timeless imbroglio into every conversation re. Linked Data :-) 
> 
> True :) the only important thing is to make clear that facebook URIs for documents are different from URIs for people.
> ----
> Alvaro Graves
> 
> 
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 8:34 AM, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote:
> On 9/26/11 11:16 AM, Sebastian Schaffert wrote:
> But then I would say the server should at least reply with a 30x redirect ;-)
> 
> Not necessarily, they choosen to implement indirection internally, rather than via HTTP response headers. Naturally, doing via HTTP is more flexible and thereby desirable, but we have to accept that "half bread is better than none" re. this matter i.e., any kind of indirection is better than no indirection re. disambiguation of Data Object ID and Address for accessing its Representation.
> 
> Kingsley
> 
> Greetings,
> 
> Sebastian
> 
> Am 26.09.2011 um 17:05 schrieb Alvaro Graves:
> 
> Hi Sebastian,
> 
> AFAIK it's not a bug, but a feature :). This is done to comply with the httpRange-14 issue (i.e., you can't retrieve a person through HTTP but you can retrieve a document _about_ a person through HTTP). Since a person and a document about a person are different entities, they should have different URIs.
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#httpRange-14
> 
> ----
> Alvaro Graves
> 

Sebastian
-- 
| Dr. Sebastian Schaffert          sebastian.schaffert@salzburgresearch.at
| Salzburg Research Forschungsgesellschaft  http://www.salzburgresearch.at
| Head of Knowledge and Media Technologies Group          +43 662 2288 423
| Jakob-Haringer Strasse 5/II
| A-5020 Salzburg
Received on Monday, 26 September 2011 20:54:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 31 March 2013 14:24:35 UTC