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

Re: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2013 22:15:44 -0400
Message-ID: <51B14250.6000605@openlinksw.com>
To: public-rdf-comments@w3.org
On 6/6/13 7:55 PM, David Booth wrote:
> The term "Linked Data" has a well-established meaning within semantic 
> web community.  The JSON-LD group would be *misleading* the public by 
> stating or implying that Linked Data is not necessarily based on RDF.
> As I pointed out to Kingsley a few weeks ago:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2013Apr/0086.html
> [[
>>   - Of the top 10 hits from in a google search for "Linked Data",
>> **every one of them stated or implied that Linked Data is based on 
>> RDF.**
>>   - Of the top 10 sites listed in a google search for '"Linked Data"
>> is', **every one of them stated or implied that Linked Data is based on
>> RDF.**
>>   - Of the top 10 sites listed in a google search for '"Linked Data"
>> definition', **every one of them stated or implied that Linked Data is
>> based on RDF.**
>> How much evidence do you need?  Shall we check the top 100 hits?  Or the
>> top 1000 hits?  Shall we try other search engines?   If you search hard
>> enough you might find a tiny fraction that supports your claim. But the
>> vast majority of the evidence does not.
>> The vast majority of the evidence indicates that in established usage,
>> the term "Linked Data" implies the use of RDF.  If you wish to propose a
>> new definition that is contrary to this established usage, you are
>> obviously free to do so.  But please do *not* make the patently false
>> claim that your proposed new definition reflects accepted usage.  It
>> very clearly does NOT.
> ]]

And I told you I disagree with your conclusions strongly.
You are quite inaccurate in those claims.

Moving forward, hopefully, what's to the problem with RDF based Linked 

Did you ever read the original Linked Data meme?

I assume you are aware that TimBL actually tweaked his original meme, 
and that simple tweak (which I complained about vehemently at the time) 
has lead these kinds of threads.

When TimBL designed the Web [1] the letters "RDF" did not exist, the 
concept of Linked Data already existed. Now don't tell me for one second 
you truly believe that the concept of Linked Data is an RDF invention, 
that's utterly inaccurate.

When TimBL designed the Web the following where firmly established:

1. denote entities using URIs
2. describe entities using Relations
3. Relations are sets of Relationships
4. Relationships can be represented using 3-tuple based 

Items 1-4 describe Linked Data.

You can have Linked Data silo-ed at the following levels:

1. operating system
2. programming language runtime
3. DBMS system
4. Web APIs .

Where does RDF add value?

Its ability to make the relationship semantics *explicit* rather than 
*implicit*. Basically, RDF enables you to publish very smart and 
inherently extensible Linked Data. You can tweak the Relations via 
vocabularies and ontologies.

> Furthermore, the official charter for the W3C Linked Data Platform 
> Working Group states explicitly that: "RDF is the basis for Linked 
> Data and the Semantic Web".
> http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/charter

Really? Have you had the pleasure of digesting some of the threads on 
that group? If you are concerned about JSON-LD, wait to you see what's 
going on over there (see links section).

There is a simple solution to this problem:

RDF based Linked Data is how we should refer to Linked Data that's based 
on RDF. Otherwise, we are simply fighting a justifiably losing battle 
trying to pack the generic phrase "Linked Data" into the already 
over-conflated bucket called "RDF".

Overloading RDF has never helped the course. Each item added to the 
bucket, in non negotiable manner, simply lays the foundation for more 
political distractions that simply undermine RDF.

RDF is great technology. All participants in its development should be 
proud. Thus, there's no reason on earth to be insecure about RDF virtues 
by eternally trying to pack everything into it.

Making entity relationship semantics human- and machine-comprehensible 
and extensible is quite a technical feat! Let's put our energy into 
coherent messaging about RDF.


[1] http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/diagrams/history/proposal-fig1.gif -- 
note the "describe" relation in that diagram (there was no RDF then, but 
the fundamental concept already existed)
[2] http://bit.ly/YrAz5L -- Overview by Issue Creators
[3] http://bit.ly/Xuyd6Z -- Overview by Issue Status .
[4] http://bit.ly/VBoRsH -- Steve's Issues Report .
[5] http://bit.ly/YrBrr9 -- Erik's Issues Report (using URIBurner data 
space) .
[6] http://bit.ly/15llZU0 -- Issues by ID
-- sample Linked Data URI for an issue
[8] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013Jun/ -- the 
list (enjoy!) .



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 Friday, 7 June 2013 02:16:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:29:57 UTC