W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-vocabs@w3.org > April 2014

Re: Socialnetworks of a person or organization

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2014 08:44:15 -0400
Message-ID: <5347E39F.40206@openlinksw.com>
To: public-vocabs@w3.org
On 4/11/14 3:10 AM, martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org wrote:
> Kingsley:
> My main point is that the theroretically nice abstractions that form the basis for the Linked Data Paradigm (entity vs. representation of a description etc.) are not necessary and not appropriate for schema.org.

Correct, I am not disagreeing with what Schema.org is, or where its 
focus lies [1].

I do disagree with your "theoretically nice abstractions" 
characterization since that isn't really accurate, bearing in mind the 
global use and impact of the World Wide Web. Anyway,  that's a topic of 
debate for a different forum, should you want to pick that up.

>
> As you know from www.productontology.org, I know quite exactly what I am talking of (it has all the best practices built in), but
>
> - they were very complex to implement
> - they are practically useless (99% of www.productontology.org users just need an URI for indicating a type of product)
> - the HTTP content negotiation between the document URIs and the entity URIs alone consumes 98 % of all server resources and costs me ca. 1000 EUR / year for no actual benefit.

I don't know how to reply the above, because I have no intention of 
starting a long debate, in the wrong forum. All I can say is this, "one 
size doesn't fit all" i.e., that might be true for your experience, but 
not for everyone else.

>
> I am planning to flatten the implementation in www.productontology.org so that there will be just one URI for the page and the type entity, essentially removing all linked data stuff in the near future.

As I said, there's nothing wrong with basic Linked Data [2] or Linked 
Open Data [3] . That doesn't render RDF based Linked Open Data [4] useless.

I continue to try to encourage everyone to see AWWW (Architecture of the 
World Wide Web) as a "mutually inclusive" as opposed to a "mutually 
exclusive" affair. We have puzzle pieces that can be *subjectively* 
linked en route to creating different kinds of Webs.


Links (from my glossary of terms doc, which was constructed to make my 
world view clearer):

[1] http://bit.ly/1doUPgl -- Schema.org
[2] http://bit.ly/1frjVhu -- Linked Data
[3] http://bit.ly/1b27VQG -- Linked Open Data
[4] http://bit.ly/L3SqR6 -- RDF based Linked Open Data (aka. "The 
Semantic Web" ) .

>
> Best wishes / Mit freundlichen Grüßen
>
> Martin Hepp
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> martin hepp
> e-business & web science research group
> universitaet der bundeswehr muenchen
>
> e-mail:  martin.hepp@unibw.de
> phone:   +49-(0)89-6004-4217
> fax:     +49-(0)89-6004-4620
> www:     http://www.unibw.de/ebusiness/ (group)
>           http://www.heppnetz.de/ (personal)
> skype:   mfhepp
> twitter: mfhepp
>
> Check out GoodRelations for E-Commerce on the Web of Linked Data!
> =================================================================
> * Project Main Page: http://purl.org/goodrelations/
>
>
>
>
> On 10 Apr 2014, at 16:15, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote:
>
>> Conclusion:
>>
>> The basis have been covered for a long time re., DBpedia. I don't see what applying "application/json+schema" or "text/plain" on all resources brings to the table, bar ambiguity and the resultant out-of-band processing which is antithetical to the fundamental goals of Linked Open Data.
>
>


-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter Profile: https://twitter.com/kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen







Received on Friday, 11 April 2014 12:44:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:29:39 UTC