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

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

From: <zazi@smiy.org>
Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2013 19:16:15 +0200
Message-ID: <20130608191615.Horde.TPFoyeURSxLh0DDFWC916A1@mail.your-server.de>
To: public-rdf-comments@w3.org
Hi Markus,

Zitat von Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>:
> Here are TBL's (current, 2009) Linked Data principles:
>
>   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
>
> So I think all we are arguing about here is the "(RDF*, SPARQL)" in (3),
> right?
> Now let's look at the at the original 2006 version of the Linked Data
> principles as Kingsley proposed:
>
>   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.
>   4) Include links to other URIs. so that they can discover more things.
>
> http://web.archive.org/web/20061201121454/http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Lin
> kedData.html
>
> Surprisingly exactly that "(RDF*, SPARQL)" remark was missing when the term
> was coined. We can continue forever to argue about whether it is needed or
> not. We can also argue whether it is possible to "provide useful
> information" by using an abstract data model, i.e., RDF. When you
> dereference a URI, you'll get back a representation which is in a concrete
> syntax. So, it would be more correct to say
>
>   3) When someone looks up a URI, provide useful information,
>      using a standard format which can be interpreted as RDF
>
> Would that add any value given that you can interpret (convert) every format
> to RDF? I doubt so. This group (myself included) is convinced that doing so
> would scare of a large portion of the target group, i.e., average web
> developers.

What you are citing is correct. However, it' just an excerpt of the  
original LinkedData meme from TimBL in 2006. Some weeks ago I had the  
same idea, but I dropped it because TimBL also stated the following in  
the introduction:

"Like the web of hypertext, the web of data is constructed with  
documents on the web. However,  unlike the web of hypertext,  where  
links are relationships anchors in hypertext documents written in  
HTML, for data they links  between arbitrary things described by RDF,.  
  The URIs identify any kind of object or  concept.   But for HTML or  
RDF, the same expectations apply to make the web grow:"

Albeit, I think and endorse that one can view the Linked Data  
guideline in itself as RDF independent, I'm not really sure whether  
this was TimBL's intention at this moment nor that it his intention  
right now. I think it might be good to ask Sir Tim Berners-Lee himself  
about his opinion (his intention) to this topic, or? ;)

Anyway, I really endorse and support the way JSON-LD and its spec  
writers are going right now.

Cheers,


Bo
Received on Saturday, 8 June 2013 17:16:50 UTC

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