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

Re: RDF-ISSUE-103 (dereferenceable-iris): Make dereferenceable IRIs a SHOULD in RDF Concepts [RDF Concepts]

From: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2012 13:12:39 -0400
To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
CC: "public-rdf-wg@w3.org" <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <6144B0FA-2F82-40FB-9A4E-FE3418861F93@greggkellogg.net>
On Nov 1, 2012, at 7:17 AM, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote:

> On 11/1/12 10:07 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>> -1 on this from me.
>> 
>> I have nothing against saying that it is good practice under some conditions, but *SHOULD* is quite a strong thing to say.
> 
> That's fine, but understand that ultimately this affects how RDF and Linked Data are related.
> 
> Personally, the association is loose ( via SHOULD) or very loose modulo SHOULD, as you suggest via your -1.
> 
> We really have to be clear about what the RDF and Linked Data relationship is, sooner rather than later.
> 
> At the current time, there are a number of folks on this list that still believe (and push) the broken RDF == Linked Data narrative.

So, it seems we have the following assertions:

1) All Linked Data is expressed in RDF (from TimBL's design note [1])
2) Not all RDF is Linked Data

I think this should be addressed in RDF Concepts, and SHOULD seems like the right assertion, as there may be good reasons why IRIs are not de-referencable. As a web format, IRIs _should_ be de-referencable, and _should_ result in a representation of the denoted resource. If this fails to be accepted, then I'd suggest that we include the assertion with MAY, but that seems far to weak to me.

Creating a needless separation between "RDF" and "Linked Data" will only weaken both concepts. We should move towards a view that has them as being just different ways to view the same overriding concept.

I'm a +1 on Markus' wording.

Gregg

[1] http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData
> Kingsley
>> 
>> peter
>> 
>> On 11/01/2012 09:42 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>>> On 11/1/12 9:33 AM, RDF Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>>>> RDF-ISSUE-103 (dereferenceable-iris): Make dereferenceable IRIs a SHOULD in RDF Concepts [RDF Concepts]
>>>> 
>>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/103
>>>> 
>>>> Raised by: Markus Lanthaler
>>>> On product: RDF Concepts
>>>> 
>>>> Lately there haven been quite some discussions about what formats are valid Linked Data. Everyone agreed that at least RDF is certainly one of them. Nevertheless, nowhere in RDF Concepts there's a normative statement that IRIs SHOULD be dereferenceable which is the core principle of Linked Data. The only statement I found about this is
>>>> 
>>>> "A good way of communicating the intended referent to the world is to set up the IRI so that it dereferences[WEBARCH] to such a document."
>>>> 
>>>> I would thus like to propose that a normative statement like the following is added to RDF Concepts:
>>>> 
>>>> "When deferenced, IRIs SHOULD return an RDF Document that describes the denoted resource by means of RDF statements."
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> Yes!
>>> 
>>> Then at the very least, you have much clearer sense of how RDF and Linked Data are related i.e., RDF enables you create Linked Data. Much better than the quantum leap to the distorted realm of RDF and Linked Data isomorphism.
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> 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 Thursday, 1 November 2012 17:13:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:52 GMT