Re: Linked Data discussions require better communication

On 20 June 2013 15:37, Courtney, Paul K. <Paul_Courtney@dfci.harvard.edu>wrote:

>  To be honest, this entire thread has reminded me of the lengthy threads
> on the ontolog listserv that finally caused me to unsubscribe. I could not
> characterize those threads as discussions because so many of the
> participants were actually talking past each other and were making
> assertions based on their particular perspective. And many of those threads
> involved discussants whose perspectives lived on entirely different levels
> of the subject matter: Ontology as a philosophy, ontology as a first order
> logic language and ontology as a way to share conceptual models a la
> Gruber[1]. These are not entirely disjoint domains, but one has to be very
> careful to ensure the discourse takes place across those levels and between
> the domains otherwise the purpose and focus of the discussion is lost.
>
>  Seems the same was happening here. I gather that Kingsley was attempting
> to ensure that we don’t forget that the roots of RDF and triples goes way
> back to early work on E-R diagrams. Fine. And it seems others were
> frustrated because they didn’t want to lose the hard-won set of W3C
> specifications and standards that would enable Linked Data to be more than
> a theoretical exercise. Also good. But it wasn’t clear to me for a while
> what Kingsley’s intent was in his posts – some context would have been very
> helpful to me. It was only when I remembered that Virtuoso takes data from
> a very wide variety of sources that it occurred to me that Kingsley’s
> perspective involves looking for triples anywhere and everywhere regardless
> of the source format & syntax. I could be wrong so I’m checking my
> assumptions up front here.
>
>  Perhaps if this kind of thread starts up again:
>
>    1. Restate/reflect ideas that in other posts that are
>    troubling/puzzling and ask for confirmation or clarification.
>    2. Restate the actual subject and focus of the discussion; the subject
>    line just doesn’t always cut it.
>    3. Do more explication with the awareness that we might be talking
>    about two (or more!) related but separate ideas/concepts. Or we could be
>    using the same terms but with slightly different definitions.
>    4. Define the terms inline rather than just linking out. One’s
>    interpretation of an external standard or specification could be different
>    from someone else’s, so I think it would be good to own it.
>
>
+1

Though it's difficult to make blanket rules that would satisfy 1000+ members

I'd recommend understand these two links thoroughly, as many of the
questions that came up in the last few threads have been addressed

http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html

http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Principles.html




> I learn so much from most of the discussions that do take place since I am
> still learning how the semantic web works – I get it on a conceptual level
> but I’m really interested in how to ground the conceptual model in a
> useful, usable form. I look forward to many other interesting threads.
>
>  Paul Courtney
>
>  [1] Gruber, Thomas R. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Gruber> (June
> 1993). "A translation approach to portable ontology specifications"<http://tomgruber.org/writing/ontolingua-kaj-1993.pdf>
>  (PDF). *Knowledge Acquisition<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_Acquisition>
> * *5* (2): 199–220.
>
>  :~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:
>
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> Paul K. Courtney, MS****
>
> Applications Specialist/Biomedical Informaticist****
>
> Information Systems****
>
> Dana-Farber Cancer Institute****
>
> T: 617.582.7389****
>
> C: 603.727.8171****
>
> F: 617.632.4030
>
>   On 6/20/13 7:15 AM, "Kingsley Idehen" <kidehen@openlinksw.com> alleged:
>
>   On 6/19/13 10:47 PM, Young,Jeff (OR) wrote:
>
> My impression is that Kingsley is arguing that triples is triples.
> Concrete syntax is irrelevant, even if those triples are barely
> recognizable by naive agents. If that's what he's saying, I would agree.
> Converting barely recognizable triples into a standard form is a trivial
> process.
>
>
>  Yes, that's my point. It's why I say that RDF didn't invent the Triple.
>
>  I've posted a document denoted with the URI/URL
> <
> http://kingsley.idehen.net/DAV/home/kidehen/Public/DropBox/Public/Linked%20Data%20Resources/linked-data-rdf-test2.ttl>
>
> in defense of my claim :-)
>
>  Kingsley
>
>
>  Jeff
> ________________________________________
> From: David Booth
> Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 10:20:49 PM
> To: Young,Jeff (OR)
> Cc: Luca Matteis; Kingsley Idehen; Linked Data community
> Subject: Re: Proof: Linked Data does not require RDF
>
>  Hi Jeff,
>
>  I guess I could have said *concrete*-syntax-independent to be more
> precise -- to distinguish it from the *abstract* syntax (or model) --
> but "serialization-independent" works too.  Or "format-independent".
>
>  David
>
>  On 06/19/2013 09:55 PM, Young,Jeff (OR) wrote:
>
> David,
>
>  I think you've confused syntax-independence with
> serialization-independence. RDF is syntax-dependent. The syntax is
> triples. OTOH, triple syntax can be serialized in a wide variety of
> ways.
>
>  Jeff
>
>  -----Original Message----- From: David Booth
> [mailto:david@dbooth.org <david@dbooth.org>] Sent: Wednesday, June 19,
> 2013 9:42 PM
> To: Luca Matteis Cc: Kingsley Idehen; Linked Data community
> Subject: Re: Proof: Linked Data does not require RDF
>
>
>   Can you please then setup a pool asking "Does creating and
> publishing Linked Data require knowledge of RDF?"
>
>  I would be willing to make such a poll if it seemed that people
> wanted it, but I don't think it is necessary.  There are *many*
> document formats that can carry RDF, and it seems self-evident that
> someone who publishes an RDF-interpretable format like JSON-LD or
> (GRDDL-enabled) XML may not understand RDF **at all**.  This is one
> of the great benefits of RDF being syntax independent.  The JSON-LD
> group understood this very well and did a great job crafting the
> JSON-LD spec to ensure that web developers would *not* have to
> understand RDF in order to happily publish their JSON-LD.
>
>  If the data is *interpretable* as RDF, then who cares whether the
> publisher understood RDF?  It seems irrelevant to me.
>
>  David
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  --
>
>  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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>    The information in this e-mail is intended only for the person to whom
> it is
> addressed. If you believe this e-mail was sent to you in error and the
> e-mail
> contains patient information, please contact the Partners Compliance
> HelpLine at
> http://www.partners.org/complianceline . If the e-mail was sent to you in
> error
> but does not contain patient information, please contact the sender and
> properly
> dispose of the e-mail.
>