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

Re: Linked Data discussions require better communication

From: Jürgen Jakobitsch SWC <j.jakobitsch@semantic-web.at>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 22:29:09 +0200
Message-ID: <1371760149.1602.16.camel@linux-1rgw.site>
To: Ted Thibodeau Jr <tthibodeau@openlinksw.com>
Cc: "public-lod@w3.org" <public-lod@w3.org>
On Thu, 2013-06-20 at 14:09 -0400, Ted Thibodeau Jr wrote:
> On Jun 20, 2013, at 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:
> 
> Much snipped...
> 
> I'm going to quote from one of TimBL's pages, to which Luca and
> Melvin just pointed.
> 
> <http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html>
> 
> Discussing 5-star Linked Open Data (2010 addition to this
> document created in 2006) --
> 
> > ★        Available on the web (whatever format) but with
> >           an open licence, to be Open Data
> > ★★       Available as machine-readable structured data
> >           (e.g. excel instead of image scan of a table)
> > ★★★      as (2) plus non-proprietary format (e.g. CSV
> >            instead of excel)
> > ★★★★    All the above plus, Use open standards from W3C
> >            (RDF and SPARQL) to identify things, so that
> >            people can point at your stuff
> > ★★★★★  All the above, plus: Link your data to other
> >            people’s data to provide context
> 
> 
> 
> Now...  RDF doesn't come in until you get a 4-star rating.
> 
> Are all you folks who are arguing that Linked Data *mandates*
> RDF suggesting that 1-, 2-, and 3-star rated Linked Open Data
> is *not* Linked Data?
> 

please note that i'm one of those believing that linked data DOES NOT
mandate RDF and this for the following reason.

if A requires A-1 and A-2 and A-3 and B offers A-1 and A-2 and A-3 
it is logically incorrect to state that A mandates B, 
also if B is the only thing worldwide that can offer A-1 and A-2 and
A-3.
it is save to say that A mandates => something <= that B offers.

inverse : if one says that A mandates B one alters the definition of
what A requires (with the side effect that if B changes (offers A-4 at a
certain point of time), the definition of A is changed not as expected
by changing the definition of A but of B.

for me there a clear distinction between

"Use open standards from W3C (RDF and SPARQL)" and 
Use RDF and SPARQL


wkr jürgen


> Because this rating scheme strongly suggests otherwise to me.
> 
> 
> In the same document, the 4 Steps that TimBL Spake --
> 
> > 1. Use URIs as names for things
> > 
> > 2. Use HTTP URIs so that people can look up those names.
> > 
> > 3. When someone looks up a URI, provide useful information,
> >    using the standards (RDF*, SPARQL)
> > 
> > 4. Include links to other URIs. so that they can discover
> >    more things.         
> 
> In its *earliest* form (which regrettably was not captured by 
> the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine), the last phrase of #3 
> read "using the standards."  (I thought it said "using the
> *relevant* standards," emphasis mine, but I'm not certain of
> that.)  I am absolutely certain that it mentioned neither RDF 
> nor SPARQL in specific.
> 
> I don't remember whether HTTP was originally in #2, but I submit
> that *that* would be better changed to "dereferenceable" -- 
> because I don't believe that HTTP is or should be The Answer 
> For All Time, as much as it may have been the best at the time 
> of writing, and may still be the best today.
> 
> And again, I wonder, even given that Words From TimBL get such 
> special treatment, why is *this* revision considered perfect, 
> if his original writing was not?
> 
> 
> Be seeing you,
> 
> Ted
> 
> 
> 
> --
> A: Yes.                      http://www.guckes.net/faq/attribution.html
> | Q: Are you sure?
> | | A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
> | | | Q: Why is top posting frowned upon?
> 
> Ted Thibodeau, Jr.           //               voice +1-781-273-0900 x32
> Senior Support & Evangelism  //        mailto:tthibodeau@openlinksw.com
>                              //              http://twitter.com/TallTed
> OpenLink Software, Inc.      //              http://www.openlinksw.com/
>          10 Burlington Mall Road, Suite 265, Burlington MA 01803
>      Weblog   -- http://www.openlinksw.com/blogs/
>      LinkedIn -- http://www.linkedin.com/company/openlink-software/
>      Twitter  -- http://twitter.com/OpenLink
>      Google+  -- http://plus.google.com/100570109519069333827/
>      Facebook -- http://www.facebook.com/OpenLinkSoftware
> Universal Data Access, Integration, and Management Technology Providers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

-- 
| Jürgen Jakobitsch, 
| Software Developer
| Semantic Web Company GmbH
| Mariahilfer Straße 70 / Neubaugasse 1, Top 8
| A - 1070 Wien, Austria
| Mob +43 676 62 12 710 | Fax +43.1.402 12 35 - 22

COMPANY INFORMATION
| web       : http://www.semantic-web.at/
| foaf      : http://company.semantic-web.at/person/juergen_jakobitsch
PERSONAL INFORMATION
| web       : http://www.turnguard.com
| foaf      : http://www.turnguard.com/turnguard
| g+        : https://plus.google.com/111233759991616358206/posts
| skype     : jakobitsch-punkt
| xmlns:tg  = "http://www.turnguard.com/turnguard#"
Received on Thursday, 20 June 2013 20:29:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 20 June 2013 20:29:38 UTC