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

Linked Data formats [was Re: Potential Formal Object from DERI over JSON-LD]

From: Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 14:50:11 +0200
Message-ID: <50869283.8000904@vu.nl>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
CC: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, "Manu Sporny" <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
[not a response to Peter, but to the discussion in general]

This is an interesting and important discussion, but I'm not sure it 
deserves much WG time at this point in time. We are the RDF WG and we 
have to consider what we require of (the normative documentation of) the 
relationship between RDF and JSON-LD.

Guus





On 23-10-2012 14:19, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> I'm with Pat on this one.
>
> It is true that I don't understand this view of linked data, but I don't
> think that the fault here lies in me. This set of principles is too
> vague to be anything more than a slogan. It appears that just about any
> logic can be used, even truly weird ones, by simply using IRIs for
> identifiers.
>
> If Linked Data was
> - use dereferenceable IRIs for identifiers
> - have a semantics where identifiers globally denote
> - have a common semantic framework
> - if you coin a new IRI use one that you control
> - use IRIs coined by others where possible
> - when someone asks for the document at an IRI provide information that
> you believe about what you believe the IRI to denote
> - provide information in a well-known syntax under the common semantic
> framework
> Then I would be happier.
>
> I would be even happier if Linked Data utilized the RDF(S)(++)(+)
> semantics and the syntaxes were for RDF graphs.
>
> peter
>
> On 10/23/2012 07:25 AM, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
>> Hi Pat,
>>
>> On 23 Oct 2012, at 03:07, 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
>>> This is completely vacuous, almost a textbook example of a Wikipedia
>>> article that is free of content (there are quite a number of them.)
>>> For example, it begins, " linked data describes a method of
>>> publishing structured data" but it then does not tell us what this
>>> "method" actually is. Which is what my query was asking for. What
>>> actually IS "linked data"? If I were shown some data, or a data
>>> storage scheme of some kind, how would I know if it were an example
>>> of linked data? How would I tell? What criteria would I use to detect
>>> the presence of "linkedness" in the data? (Can anyone give me an
>>> example of data that is not linked data, and tell me why it isn't?
>>> That would be a start.)
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linked_Data#Principles
>>
>>> That is great, but how would anyone know that this is what they were
>>> in fact doing? Does just using JSON + using URIs make it linked data?
>>> Apparently not, according to the Wikipedia article, which says that
>>> linked data pre-dates URIs.
>> No, it says that the general idea predates URIs (and that claim is
>> flagged with [citation needed]), but that the term was coined by
>> TimBL. Following the references you'll see that his original article
>> prominently features URIs.
>>
>>> So what is it that makes the linked magic happen?
>> See the link above.
>>
>>> This is completely vacuous
>>> free of content
>>> empty phrase devoid of meaning
>>
>> Translation Pat => English: “I don't understand it.”
>>
>> Best,
>> Richard
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Pat
>>>
>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>> IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973
>>> 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
>>> Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
>>> FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile
>>> phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 23 October 2012 12:50:41 GMT

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