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

Re: Linked Data discussions require better communication

From: Stephane Fellah <fellahst@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 14:16:48 -0400
Message-ID: <CALfZuNrsih=5FaDBC7P08JUkgDAY0uYx=MZmqmgPQ4qojZWpkw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
Kingsley,




On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 1:28 PM, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>wrote:

>  On 6/20/13 12:50 PM, Stephane Fellah wrote:
>
>  Hi,
>
>  I agree with Luca's viewpoint. The W3C standard RDF model (a.k.a triple
> model) is one of most fundamental piece of the technology stack defining
> Linked Data (along with URIs and HTTP).
>
>
> I am not disputing that point.
>
> Here's what in dispute, and the topic of debate to me: the misconception
> that you MUST know anything about RDF en route to creating and publishing
> Linked Data. RDF is an optional implementation detail with a particular
> outcome in mind i.e., the ability for humans and machines to understand the
> entity relationship semantics that constitute the Linked Data.
>
>
> Can you provide some examples to clarify your point here? Do you consider
CSV files as Linked Data ? Do you consider RDBMS Tables ( using primary
keys of the database as identifiers) as Linked data ?  Do you consider XML
documents using XPointer and XLink as Linked Data (like in Geographic
Markup Language GML) ? Do you consider XML documents using local identifier
xml:id as Linked Data ? I personally do not consider them as Linked Data
because they do not adhere to the RDF model (meaning I cannot harvest them
as a set of triples using URIs). If you disagree with my point, then we
should have different terminologies to distinguish RDF compliant data
versus the rest.




>  I think it is important to make understand the community that Linked
> Data  can be serialized into different representations (Turtle, RDF/XML,
> JSON-LD, N3, NTriples, TrigG, and any future formats) , as long as they are
> isomorphic to RDF model (meaning data can be converted to a set of triples
> and identifiers are based on URIs).
>
>
> I really don't believe that I am disputing this point. Neither do I
> believe the point (above) is new to anyone on this list.
>
>   If the data are NOT convertible to RDF model, I do not consider it as
> Linked Data.
>
>
> And that assertion is inaccurate. It is also indefensible. The World Wide
> Web as it already exists is full of Linked Data for which RDF processors
> may or may not exist. It functions, humans and programs understand the
> "LinksTo" relation etc.. That's why it works and scales the way it does.
>

That is where I differ with you: The World Wide Web as it already exists is
full of "Data", not "Linked Data". To become Linked Data they need to be
converted to RDF Model, meaning be compliant with triple model and uses
URIs and HTTP to be linkable. CSV files, XML with local identifier files,
Database tables are NOT  linked data until they adhere to the Triple Model
and uses URI for identification (thus being compliant with the RDF Model).



>
> Guess what, even though the World Wide Web is dominated by HTML content,
> it was bootstrapped on the back of a draconian mandate that everything MUST
> be interpretable as HTML.
>
> Ironically, DBpedia most powerful deliverable was the use of HTML to
> expose the concept of Linked Data. We stuck RDF/XML and other formats in
> the footer pages of said documents.
>
>  To make the system works, you need some set of standards on which
> everyone agree: HTTP, URIs, RDF are fundamental to Linked Data.
>
>
> URIs and web-liked structured data representation are fundamental to
> Linked Data.
>
> RDF is fundamental to Blogic.
>
>
RDF is fundamental to build the "Global Linked Data Graph" (Directed
Labeled Graph model based on URIs).  Inferencing, ontologies, SPARQL,
 BLogic,  are just value-adds capabilities on top of Linked Data. You do
not need BLogic for Linked Data.




>   Saying we do not need RDF model for Linked Data is like saying we do
> not need URL or HTTP for the web of documents.
>
>
> Again, here is what I am saying: You don't need to know anything about RDF
> to create and publish Linked Data. Please read my words, don't react to
> them.
>
>
> Based on my comments, I disagree with you on this point.



> Kingsley
>
>
>  Sincerely
> Stephane Fellah
>
>
>
Stephane

>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 11:45 AM, Luca Matteis <lmatteis@gmail.com> 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.
>>
>>
>>> Restate the actual subject and focus of the discussion; the subject line
>>> just doesn’t always cut it.
>>
>>
>>  Again the subject line is the *definition* of the term Linked Data.
>> More specifically whether it includes (or should include) RDF.
>>
>>  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.
>>
>>
>>  I want to concentrate on the current definition of the Linked Data
>> term. Why do the main sites built from the Linked Data community *strictly*
>> describe RDF as one of the main technologies that enable Linked Data?
>>
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>
>> I simply think RDF is part of Linked Data's definition, because of the
>> evidence I have shown above. If this is not the case, we should discuss it
>> as a community. If we decide that RDF is *not* part of the definition of
>> Linked Data, we should probably remove it from all the top sites, otherwise
>> it will create confusion for newcomers.
>>
>>  Also we should make new Linked Data coffee mugs ;-)
>>
>>  Luca
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
> 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 18:17:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 20 June 2013 18:17:17 UTC