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

Re: Benifit of Schema.org over linked data or vice versa

From: <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2014 21:58:53 +0200
Cc: W3C Web Schemas Task Force <public-vocabs@w3.org>
Message-Id: <C8593B3F-84F9-4212-9BD4-348B56BB77BD@ebusiness-unibw.org>
To: Lloyd Fassett <lloyd@azteria.com>
Here is my take on this (from the recent GoodRelations & schema.org tutorial at ESWC2014):



Martin

-------------------------------------------------------
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 02 Jun 2014, at 21:53, Lloyd Fassett <lloyd@azteria.com> wrote:

> It's a really interesting question to me.  I get the feeling that Schema.org is for publishing for search engines.  Linked Data on the other hand is more capable of enabling more interaction and re-use of data between different applications.
> 
> Linked Data could enable a stand alone application as well, where it wouldn't make sense to do that with Schema.org.
> 
> Is that about right?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Lloyd Fassett
> Azteria, Inc.
> Bend, OR
> 
> Lloyd Fassett
> Azteria Inc.
> Bend, OR 
> (541) 848-2440 (PST)
> 
> 
> On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 8:32 AM, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote:
> On 6/2/14 9:40 AM, Dan Brickley wrote:
> When TimBL originally wrote
> http://www.w3.org/designissues/linkeddata.html  it was largely a
> response to the indirect linking model we'd been using in the FOAF
> project.
> 
> Dan,
> 
> I wouldn't say using HTTP URIs for unambiguous denotation of entities was a response to FOAF. It just so happened that FOAF provided a nice anecdote [1] for making the point. It's hard to explain why "You" need an HTTP URI that denotes "You" unambiguously if there's nothing in place to support and demonstrate the utility of a common practice in the real-world that's simply being exploitable via the Web medium.
> 
> As you know, unambiguous HTTP URI based entity denotation dates back to the very notion of a World Wide Web  (on Paper and inside TimBL's head) [2][3] :-)
> 
> How all of this got lost I will never know, but I do challenge anyone to image the real-world without:
> 
> 1. words -- that denoted things unambiguously
> 2. terms -- that denoted things unambiguously
> 3. sentences comprised of ambiguous words
> 4. statements comprised of ambiguous terms.
> 
> If RDF had been promoted (from the onset) as a Language rather than a Format (specifically RDF/XML) we wouldn't still be deliberating these matters circa., 2014.
> 
> Links:
> 
> [1] http://bit.ly/1tBFW2Q -- Get Yourself a URI post by TimBL
> 
> [2] http://bit.ly/1aNuWca -- original WWW proposal (this couldn't include live HTTP URIs since the Web was at the proposal stage)
> 
> [3] http://bit.ly/10Y9FL1 -- original WWW proposal embellished with live HTTP URIs that denote entities.
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> 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 Monday, 2 June 2014 19:59:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:29:42 UTC