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

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

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 09:38:52 -0400
Message-ID: <50869DEC.9030707@openlinksw.com>
To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On 10/23/12 8:50 AM, Guus Schreiber wrote:
> [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

Guus,

The key to solving a problem is understanding the problem. I'll try to 
break it down, one more time.

You have RDF, JSON-LD, and a non existent thing called JSON-RDF+LD .

There is an argument about JSON-LD that's really all about JSON-RDF+LD. 
That's it.

Kingsley
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>


-- 

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 Tuesday, 23 October 2012 13:39:17 GMT

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