W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > August 2012

Re: JSON-LD terminology

From: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 09:45:55 -0400
To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
CC: "public-rdf-wg@w3.org" <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <FF2A553E-5D96-44FA-A780-4787D7C92A11@kellogg-assoc.com>
On Aug 31, 2012, at 5:07 AM, "Kingsley Idehen" <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote:

> On 8/31/12 7:51 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On 31/08/12 12:29, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>>> It claims any RDF document is a Linked Data document. That simply isn't
>>> accurate. The RDF spec makes no claims about IRIs being:
>>> 
>>> 1. de-referencable
>>> 2. http: scheme based.
>> 
>> Let's talk about what the document actually says in section 3.1 and not make comments about political opinion and what one "ideal world" might look like.
>> 
>> The document says:
>> 
>> [[
>> 7. IRIs used within a linked data graph SHOULD be dereferenceable to a Linked Data document describing the resource denoted by that IRI.
>> ]]
>> 
>> SHOULD, not MUST.
>> 
>> In reality, not all IRIs are going to be dereferencable.
>> 
>> The condition should be "potentially dereferencable" because the burden is far too high otherwise.
>> 
>> We all might think it is a good idea but I for one am not going to condemn a data publisher if it uses another scheme or has not put up a document at some URI at the time of publication.  The publisher might have very good reasons for it.
> 
> Not disputing any of that. My issue is that none of the above justifies conflating RDF and Linked Data.

What if we amend the sentence as follows: n particular, any document based on an RDF serialization format *using dereferencable IRIs* is a Linked Data document.

Gregg

>> From experience, this is impractical anyway because you can loose control of a URI space.  URIs live on.
> 
> Yes, but the URI/URL address space isn't as important as the actual *denotation* an *indirection* functionality delivered by generic Linked Data URIs. This is why (of late) I've been publishing notes about sample Turtle document [1] that demonstrate how Linked Data can be deployed in a manner that showcases the power of entity names over entity description document addresses, without burdening document publishers with any of the following:
> 
> 1. domain ownership
> 2. dns server access with admin privileges
> 3. web server ownership
> 4. web server access with admin privileges
> 5. URI style choices for entity name/ description document address disambiguation.
> 
>> 
>> JSON-LD does not mention http: schemes and is not limited to them. http: is highly desirable but not necessary.
> 
> But I am talking about the RDF side of things here; specifically about the *inaccurate claim* that any RDF document is a Linked Data document.
> 
> Links:
> 
> 1. http://bit.ly/RJzd9S -- DIY-style Linked Data deployment via Turtle
> 2. http://bit.ly/O4LNKf -- DIY-style LInked Data deployment and Web-scale verifiable identity.
> 
>> 
>>    Andy
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Friday, 31 August 2012 13:46:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:02:06 UTC