W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > July 2010

Re: An RDF wishlist

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2010 13:14:48 -0400
Message-ID: <4C2CCD08.1020605@openlinksw.com>
To: Rob Styles <Rob.Styles@talis.com>
CC: Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
Rob Styles wrote:
> On 1 Jul 2010, at 14:05, Ed Summers wrote:
>
>   
>> Wonderful post Dan. I think the work you and others have been doing w/
>> Facebook on the OpenGraphProtocol is a great example of how we ought
>> to be thinking about the future of RDF ... building vocabularies to
>> describe web resources, describing relationships between these
>> resources...basically embracing the web that we have...just like Edd
>> did with XTech.
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 4:46 AM, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org> wrote:
>>     
>>> The very nature of RDF makes it somewhat annoying to work with. RDF
>>> data is always going to be a kind of frankenstein's data monster,
>>> patched together from bits and pieces that can just about be made to
>>> fit together. Fortunately, we have at our fingertips a world wide Web
>>> that lets us share an awful lot of these bits; the more we can get
>>> re-usable RDF datasets out there, the less people will worry about the
>>> pain of using it, and the more likely it'll be that there will be
>>> genuinely useful, relevant data on hand when someone goes looking for
>>> it.
>>>       
>> I find the hardest thing to get newbies (like myself not too long ago)
>> to understand is that when one consumes RDF (in whatever
>> serialization) you need to operate on it like a graph instead of as a
>> hierarchical document (xml, json).  I guess this is where SPARQL comes
>> in, but if you have to get a SPARQL stack set up to just work with
>> some data you fetched from a URI ...
>>     
>
> Absolutely! In my experience training people on this stuff this is exactly the sticking point, everyone is used to navigating trees, not graphs and without understanding the graph data model rdf serialisations are opaque.
>
> rob
>
>
>   
>> I was pleased to see a JSON Serialization for RDF make it into the top
>> 5 improvements [1]. I think a canonical, idiomatic JSON representation
>> for RDF would simplify processing of RDF data on the web. Like RDFa,
>> it would encourage the use of the RDF data model for describing little
>> bits of the Giant Global Graph we call the World Wide Web.
>>
>> //Ed
>>
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2010/06/rdf-work-items/table
>>
>>     
>
>
> Please consider the environment before printing this email.
>
> Find out more about Talis at http://www.talis.com/
> shared innovation™
>
> Any views or personal opinions expressed within this email may not be those of Talis Information Ltd or its employees. The content of this email message and any files that may be attached are confidential, and for the usage of the intended recipient only. If you are not the intended recipient, then please return this message to the sender and delete it. Any use of this e-mail by an unauthorised recipient is prohibited.
>
> Talis Information Ltd is a member of the Talis Group of companies and is registered in England No 3638278 with its registered office at Knights Court, Solihull Parkway, Birmingham Business Park, B37 7YB.
>   

Rob,

+1

Which is why I find aversion to EAV or EAV/CR when introducing RDF 
utterly bizarre.

RDF didn't invent the Graph Model. It simply added URIs as an evolution 
of an established model.

RDF will remain in a comprehension tizzy for as long as people attempt 
to introduce it to newcomers without historic perspective.

History helps anyone grok new subject matter.

-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	      
President & CEO 
OpenLink Software     
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen 
Received on Thursday, 1 July 2010 17:15:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 07:42:20 UTC