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

Re: Potential Formal Object from DERI over JSON-LD

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 11:16:12 -0400
Message-ID: <5085633C.6030604@openlinksw.com>
To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On 10/22/12 11:05 AM, Steve Harris wrote:
> For what it's worth (and this is really off topic, especially for the RDF working group) I don't agree with this viewpoint at all.
>
> IMHO if we don't define a lingua franca for Linked Data then we're wasting our time even discussing the idea of it.

RDF doesn't have to be the lingua franca. Especially when we already 
have one from Natural Language that can be expressed digitally using a 
variety of content markup oriented syntaxes.

An entity-attribute-value graph may or may not be endowed with 
de-referencable URI across the entity, attribute, and values 
(optionally) slots. In addition, increasing fidelity of machine 
comprehensible entity relationship semantics is where RDF comes into the 
picture, fundamentally.

> The situation is bad enough with RDFa, JSON-LD, GRDDL, POWDER, Ntriples, N3, Turtle, and RDF/XML - not to mention NQuads, TriG, and TriX - without bringing other data models into the equation as well.

Trouble is that you are sorta making that statement back to front since 
the basic EAV model and notations for representation precedes everything 
you've listed above.

HTTP kills off the syntax and data serialization formats issues. Thus, 
you only need to focus on explicit semantics re. entity relationship 
graphs and the contributions of RDF.

Again, let's take the opportunity to make this all work en masse. 
Conflating RDF and Linked Data will never get this endeavor to mass 
adoption and comprehension. We can solve this problem since its utterly 
artificial :-)

Kingsley
>
> http://www.w3.org/standards/semanticweb/data makes no mention of non-RDF stack languages.
>
> - Steve
>
> On 2012-10-22, at 14:03, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
>
>> Hi Peter,
>>
>> If it can be sent over HTTP, and can express hyperlinks in a standard way, and can express arbitrary attribute-value pairs in a standard way, then it can do Linked Data.
>>
>> Best,
>> Richard
>>
>>
>> On 22 Oct 2012, at 12:03, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>>> So I could have reverse Polish notation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_Polish_notation linked data? Or object-oriented http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_database linked data? Or fuzzy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzy_logic linked data?  Or Montague http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montague_grammar linked data?  These are all standard in some sense.
>>>
>>> There has to be some notion that everyone is serving up stuff that others can read.  Otherwise linked data is nothing more than a slogan.  But where is the boundary?  It seems to me that the boundary is triples, i.e., RDF.  What linked data adds is nothing more than pragmatics.  (Not that pragmatics isn't important.)
>>>
>>> peter
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/22/2012 06:02 AM, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
>>>> Pat,
>>>>
>>>> On 22 Oct 2012, at 04:59, Pat Hayes wrote:
>>>>> I would be very interested to discover what y'all consider the be the definition of Linked Data. Can you provide a pointer to where this can be found? Thanks in advance.
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linked_Data
>>>>
>>>> Trying to nail it down much tighter than that is counter-productive. I learned this the hard way a couple of years ago, when foolishly trying to stop people who were “doing Linked Data with Atom” from using the LD term.
>>>>
>>>> One can obviously do Linked Data with RDF, and that's by far the most popular approach. RDF is well-suited to that task, and it's the community where the LD term first emerged. W3C's LDP-WG is currently writing a specification that has more details for that.
>>>>
>>>> JSON-LD is an attempt at creating a format that allows doing Linked Data with JSON. That's great. However, there's a thin line between saying “we enable LD with JSON” and “JSON-LD is how you do LD”. The JSON-LD spec really ought to say only the first thing, but slips into implying the second too often.
>>>>
>>>> Attempting to enforce a particular implementation technology for Linked Data, be it RDF or JSON or Atom or Microdata or whatever, doesn't work. This is what Kingsley keeps repeating on a daily basis, and he's right.
>>>>
>>>> The fact that a JSON-LD document also can be parsed to an RDF graph is mostly orthogonal to this.
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>> Richard
>>>
>>


-- 

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 Monday, 22 October 2012 15:16:34 GMT

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