W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > April to June 2010

Networked RDF Information or Knowledge - Was Re: Need input before I can address Kjetil's comment

From: Chimezie Ogbuji <ogbujic@ccf.org>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 09:37:41 -0400
To: "Andy Seaborne" <andy.seaborne@talis.com>, "SPARQL Working Group WG" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C81C04E5.11B2B%ogbujic@ccf.org>
On 5/21/10 4:55 AM, "Andy Seaborne" <andy.seaborne@talis.com> wrote:
> ..snip ..
> I'll will still suport the document going forward as it is but I still
> think "knowledge" is a confusing term, especially when used in a context
> where "information resource" is being used since "knowldge" evokes
> something higher than information [1].

But this is precisely the intention (i.e., to indicate something higher than
information).  The DIKW Hierarchy assumes that the term knowledge is

"The knowledge component of DIKW "is generally agreed to be an elusive
concept which is difficult to define. Knowledge is typically defined with
reference to information."

However, the term 'knowledge representation' is well established and well
defined and ' networked RDF knowledge' is meant to appeal to the idea that
RDF is a knowledge representation in both an informal sense (it is referred
to as such in the original Semantic Web Scientific America article) and in
the formal sense given here [1].  It functions as a surrogate for the things
that exist in the world (via its model theory), it allows you to make a set
of ontological commitments (through the use of OWL, for instance), it
supports reasoning (also via its model theory), it is a medium of human
expression, etc.  All of these criteria clearly distinguishes RDF from XML
(for instance) or HTML, both of which are also syntaxes for Information

> "RDF information" or "RDF data"

It boils down to preference.  To me, the well understood characterization of
a knowledge representation is actually less vague than "information" which
only implies that the data is 'organized or structured' and says nothing
about machine understanding (which is what primarily distinguishes the
semantic web from the regular web).  The latter "RDF data" is problematic
because "A KR is *not* a data structure" [1].

> The "networked" is also a bit odd because the networked-ness is provided
> by HTTP, and isn't an intrinsic feature of the logcial value of the
> information.

I can live with just 'RDF knowledge' since it is already implied that it is
a part of the AWWW (and thus networked).
> "graph value" or "graph literal" would be my ideal choice even though it
> uses the word "graph", which on its own is the more concrete (abstract
> syntax) representation for the value.

Graph value or graph literal is very vague and inert to me.  When you
interpret a graph you get more than just literal values, but a way to reason
about the world.

[1] http://groups.csail.mit.edu/medg/ftp/psz/k-rep.html

-- Chime


P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail

Cleveland Clinic is ranked one of the top hospitals
in America by U.S.News & World Report (2009).  
Visit us online at http://www.clevelandclinic.org for
a complete listing of our services, staff and

Confidentiality Note:  This message is intended for use
only by the individual or entity to which it is addressed
and may contain information that is privileged,
confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable
law.  If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient or the employee or agent responsible for
delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or
copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.  If
you have received this communication in error,  please
contact the sender immediately and destroy the material in
its entirety, whether electronic or hard copy.  Thank you.
Received on Friday, 21 May 2010 13:38:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:42 GMT