- From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 18:32:59 +0100
- To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Cc: RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 2012-10-22, at 16:59, Richard Cyganiak wrote: > Steve, Antoine, > > On 22 Oct 2012, at 16:05, Steve Harris wrote: >> IMHO if we don't define a lingua franca for Linked Data then we're wasting our time even discussing the idea of it. > > That's like saying: “If we don't have one lingua franca for object-oriented programming, then we're wasting our time even discussing the idea of it.” Not, not really - OO programming is a convention, Linked Data was intended to provide more interoperability than that implies to me. Now, it could be that Linked Data has changed course, and now it's more of a methodology, but I hope not. c.f. wasting time discussing it. > Linked Data is not a protocol or format. It's a design pattern or an architectural style or a paradigm or whatever you call these abstract things. Not according to http://www.w3.org/standards/semanticweb/data "What is Linked Data?" > We don't need to define it. Well… that's a matter of opinion. >> 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. > > I'm not sure what you mean by “bringing into the equation”. You view Linked Data as a paradigm, I view it as a set of interoperable standards. - Steve > FYI, LDP-WG is defining a protocol with minimum requirements for doing Linked Data with RDF. > > On 22 Oct 2012, at 16:27, Antoine Zimmermann wrote: >> Now, I sympathise with Kingsley leitmotiv that we (individual persons, not WG) should present RDF in ways that suit our audience's vocabulary (e.g., EAV rather than SPO). But this has to be done in tutorials, classrooms, presentations, communications, etc with our partners, not inside the W3C spec, IMO. > > +1 > > Best, > Richard > > > >> >> >> -AZ >> >> >> Le 22/10/2012 17:05, Steve Harris a écrit : >>> 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. 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. >>> >>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> -- >> Antoine Zimmermann >> ISCOD / LSTI - Institut Henri Fayol >> École Nationale Supérieure des Mines de Saint-Étienne >> 158 cours Fauriel >> 42023 Saint-Étienne Cedex 2 >> France >> Tél:+33(0)4 77 42 66 03 >> Fax:+33(0)4 77 42 66 66 >> http://zimmer.aprilfoolsreview.com/ >> > > -- Steve Harris, CTO Garlik, a part of Experian +44 7854 417 874 http://www.garlik.com/ Registered in England and Wales 653331 VAT # 887 1335 93 80 Victoria Street, London, SW1E 5JL
Received on Monday, 22 October 2012 17:33:29 UTC