Re: Proof: Linked Data does not require RDF

On 6/19/13 5:36 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> On 6/19/13 3:41 PM, David Booth wrote:
>> On 06/19/2013 02:29 AM, エリクソン トーレ wrote:
>>> My point was that even if the data producer doesn't know anything about
>>> RDF, when applying the meme he will produce something that follows
>>> the RDF abstract syntax. That is the strength of RDF and why I think
>>> it is an intrinsic part of Linked Data.
>>
>> +1
>>
>> The data does not have to *look* like RDF to *be* (interpretable as) 
>> RDF.
>
> I am not disputing that.
>
>> But to support the goal of the Semantic Web, it is important 
>> *specifically* that the data be interpretable as RDF.
>
> I am not disputing that.  The Semantic Web is about RDF based Blogic.
>
> My simple point (which I will defend vigorously) is this:
>
> You don't need to know anything about RDF to create and publish Linked 
> Data in line with TimBL's original Linked Data meme.
>
> "interpretable as RDF" is a Blogic requirement. That isn't a Linked 
> Data requirement.
>
> Interpretation is about understanding. A Linked Data graph is 
> comprised of Triples that represent how a entities are related i.e., 
> the Triple is a representation of a Relationship between two entities, 
> facilitated the relationship predicate. The semantics of the 
> relationship may be *explicit* or *implicit*. These semantics may or 
> may not be machine or human comprehensible.
>
> RDF makes the entity relationship semantics expressed in a triple 
> machine-comprehensible (at the very least). An RDF processor can 
> interpret RDF statements. A Linked Data processor on the other hand, 
> simply follows the links unveiled by content published (via public or 
> private web-like documents) using the principles outlined in TimBL's 
> original meme.
>
> You are trying to shy away from "inference" and "reasoning" (key RDF 
> features) while making an "all or nothing" grab for the much more 
> generic concept of Linked Data.
>
> "term or art" , "interpretable" , "ambiguity" etc.. aren't the key 
> points around which to mount a defense or justification for trying to 
> infer that RDF is the only option for Linked Data. It just doesn't 
> compute and It isn't defensible.
>
>

Typo fixed and updated edition of what followed the statements above:

Linked Data, RDF, and the Semantic Web are three distinct but things. 
They denote three puzzle pieces that add utility to web-like structured 
data representation that can scale to the World Wide Web, subject to 
choices you make about identifiers used to denote entities in 
relationships represented by 3-tuple (or triples) based propositional 
statements (or claims).

A URI is the basic unit of Data-de-silo-fication.

URIs (as you know) came along and enabled a World Wide Web long before 
the letters "RDF" became associated with the concept of web-like 
structured data -- enhanced with machine- and human-comprehensible 
entity relationship semantics.

-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen 
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen