W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > June 2013

Re: Linked Data discussions require better communication

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 14:12:40 -0400
Message-ID: <51C34618.7040305@openlinksw.com>
To: public-lod@w3.org
On 6/20/13 1:05 PM, Pat Hayes wrote:
> On Jun 20, 2013, at 11:54 AM, Giovanni Tummarello wrote:
>
>> My 2c is .. i agree with kingsley diagram , linked data should be possible without RDF (no matter serialization) :)
>> however this is different from previous definitions
>>
>> i think its a step forward.. but it is different from previously. Do we want to call it  Linked Data 2.0? under this definition also schema.org marked up pages would be linked data .. and i agree plenty with this .
> So, I imagine, does everyone else. But are you implying that Schema markup is somehow incompatible with RDF?

No, that isn't what Gio means. Schema.org is more compatible with RDF 
than it actually is with Linked Data. Anyway, you've just introduced 
another dimension to my fundamental point.

The issue with schema.org is that it doesn't actually adhere to the 
critical Linked Data requirement that entities should be named 
unambiguously using URIs [1].

>   If so, try reading http://blog.schema.org/2012/06/semtech-rdfa-microdata-and-more.html

It is more compatible with RDF than it is with Linked Data principles 
outlined in any of TimBL's LInked Data memes. Likewise, it doesn't match 
the deployment patterns demonstrated by DBpedia and the rest of the LOD 
cloud (RDF based Linked Data exemplars).  In fact, schema.org and (until 
very recently) many RDF ontologies don't conform with the principles 
outlined in TimBL's memes.

Now if what I claim is true, how can we (with a straight face) look 
anyone in the eye and claim that you can only produce Linked Data based 
on knowledge of RDF, when many that are knowledgeable in RDF don't even 
actually do that?

Links:

1. http://bit.ly/196mG8S -- Vapor (Linked Data verification service) 
Report for a random Schema.org entity URI
2. http://schema.org/MusicAlbum -- Schema.org URI conflates the identity 
of a  "Music Album" with the identity of the Document from which its 
sense is perceived.


Kingsley
>
> Pat
>
>> Gio
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 6:27 PM, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote:
>> On 6/20/13 11:45 AM, Luca Matteis wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>  Restate/reflect ideas that in other posts that are troubling/puzzling and ask for confirmation or clarification.
>>>
>>> I am simply confused with the idea brought forward by Kingsley that RDF is *not* part of the definition of Linked Data. The evidence shows the contrary: the top sites that define Linked Data, such as Wikipedia, Linkeddata.org and Tim-BL's meme specifically mention RDF, for example:
>>>
>>> "It builds upon standard Web technologies such as HTTP, RDF and URIs" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linked_data
>>> "connecting pieces of data, information, and knowledge on the Semantic Web using URIs and RDF." - http://linkeddata.org/
>>>
>>> This is *the only thing* that I'm discussing here. Nothing else. The current *definition* of Linked Data.
>> Here's what I am saying, again:
>>
>> 1. You can create and publish web-like structured data without any knowledge of RDF .
>>
>> 2. You can create and publish web-like data that's enhanced with human- and machine-comprehensible entity relationship semantics when you add RDF to the mix.
>>
>> Venn diagram based Illustration of my point: http://bit.ly/16EVFVG .
>>
>> If you want your Linked Data to be interpretable by machine, then you can achieve that goal via RDF based Linked Data and applications equipped with RDF processing capability.
>>
>> RDF entity relationship semantics are *explicit* whereas run-of-the-mill entity relationship model based entity relationship semantics are *implicit*.
>>
>> RDF is the W3C's recommended framework for increasing the semantic fidelity of relations that constitute the World Wide Web.
>>
>> It isn't really that complicated.
>>
>> RDF can be talked about usefully without inadvertently creating an eternally distracting Reality Distortion Field, laden with indefensible ambiguity.
>>
>> -- 
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> IHMC                                     (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973
> 40 South Alcaniz St.           (850)202 4416   office
> Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fax
> FL 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile
> phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


-- 

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







Received on Thursday, 20 June 2013 18:13:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 20 June 2013 18:13:04 UTC