Re: What Does Point Number 3 of TimBL's Linked Data Mean?

+1 David.

It is clear that interoperability of any system is enabled by a set of
widely adopted standards (similar to TCP/IP for internet, HTTP/URI for the
Web).  TBL clearly indicated in his revised document that the standards for
Linked Data are URI, HTTP,  RDF and SPARQL for the query language. I am not
going to argue with this, like I am not going to argue that HTTP is the
protocol for hypertext. You may argue that the specs are imperfect, but
they are truly a solid foundation for SW architecture. The specs can be
revised and improved other time (such HTTP 1.0,HTTP 1.1, SPARQL 1.1, RDF
1.1, OWL 2.0).

While the writing is TBL's personal opinion, RDF and SPARQL are W3C
standards. Introducing other standards would break interoperability of the
system. This would be my last intervention on this subject, as I think I
explain enough my position. I just do not have the energy and time to keep
arguing about this topic,as it brings nothing new on the table to improve
the goal of SW.

Sincerely
Stephane


On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 3:06 PM, David Wood <david@3roundstones.com> wrote:

> Hi Kingsley,
>
> I really [1] hate to get drawn on this, but I think that Tim made it
> rather clear with his revised Design Issue document that the standards
> (RDF* and SPARQL) were necessary.  That's why he added them.  I agree.
>
> Now, perhaps we can stop having the same discussion in thirty different
> threads?  Please?
>
> Regards,
> Dave
> --
> http://about.me/david_wood
>
> [1] *Really!*
>
> On Jun 21, 2013, at 13:06, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote:
>
> > All,
> >
> > Situation Analysis (for additional context):
> >
> > There are two versions of Design Issues documents [1][2] from TimBL
> where the primary topic is Linked Data. Both documents a comprised of four
> bullet points that outline a principled approach to document content
> production and publication en route to a Web of Data.
> >
> > Naturally, for a majority of folks, TimBL's design issue memes
> (irrespective of their clearly stated disclaimers) are deemed authoritative
> with regards to matters relating to Web Architecture and best practices.
> >
> > Current Problem:
> >
> > The fundamental meaning of point three in both Linked Data memes has
> *inadvertently* lead to very strong differences of opinion, with regards to
> interpretation. Here are the two interpretations (that I know of) which
> stand out the most:
> >
> > 1. RDF and SPARQL are implementation details
> > 2. RDF and SPARQL aren't implementation details -- basically, you can't
> produce Linked Data without knowledge and/or a commitment to either.
> >
> > Why do we need to resolve this matter?
> >
> > It has become a distraction at every level, it is basically leading to
> fragmentation where there should be common understanding. For example, some
> of us are more comfortable with RDF and SPARQL as implementation details
> while others aren't (it seems!). This difference of interpretation appears
> insignificant at first blush, but as you drill-down into the many threads
> about this matter we also hit the key issues of *tolerance* vs *dogma*.
> >
> > What do I mean by RDF and SPARQL are Linked Data implementation details?
> >
> > They are W3C standards that aid the process of building Linked Data (as
> outlined in the TimBL's revised meme). That said, it doesn't mean that you
> cannot take other paths to Linked Data while remaining 100% compliant with
> the essence of TimBL's original Linked Data meme.
> >
> >
> > Example:
> >
> > DBpedia (and other LInked Data endeavors that leverage Virtuoso or tools
> like Pubby) apply point number three (either meme version) as follows:
> >
> > 1. use HTTP re-write rules to generate SPARQL Protocol URLs
> > 2. use content negotiation to align SPARQL protocol URLs with the
> content types requested by an HTTP user agent.
> >
> > The net effect of the above is as follows:
> >
> > 1. HTML browsers become Linked Data Browsers -- including IE6 (you can
> follow-your-nose to wherever curiosity takes you without exiting HTML)
> > 2. CSV Browsers become Linked Data Browsers -- I've demonstrated this
> using SPARQL-FED based SPARQL protocol URLs that simply return CSV output
> > 3. RDF processors are exposed to the expanse of Linked Data -- i.e.,
> they have wider access to entities enhanced with an understanding of their
> relationship semantics
> > 4. OWL processors are exposed to the expanse of Linked Data -- ditto ++.
> >
> > Links:
> >
> > 1. http://bit.ly/14gE7wQ -- TimBL's original Linked Data meme
> > 2. http://bit.ly/NvbPLF -- TimBL's revised Linked Data meme
> > 3. http://dbpedia.org/resource/Linked_data -- DBpedia URI for the
> Linked Data concept
> > 4. http://bit.ly/13lcdAM -- Vapor (Linked Data verification utility)
> report for <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Linked_data>
> > 5. http://bit.ly/16EVFVG -- Venn diagram illustrating how some of us
> see the relationship between Linked Data, RDF, and Identifiers.
> >
> > --
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>