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

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Fri, 02 Jul 2010 09:49:01 -0400
Message-ID: <4C2DEE4D.1090200@openlinksw.com>
To: Henry Story <henry.story@gmail.com>
CC: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
Henry Story wrote:
> On 2 Jul 2010, at 15:22, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>
>   
>>> I think, the main confusion comes from the use of the term "object" for two
>>> entirely different things: In the case of "O-R-O", it refers to (semantic)
>>> individuals. In the case of "S-P-O", it refers to a position in a
>>> (syntactic) RDF triple.
>>>  
>>>       
>> Conflation Conflation. It makes RDF a real PITA, unfortunately.
>>
>>
>> EAV model is crystal clear:
>>
>> Entity-Attribute-Value.
>>
>> Slap on HTTP names for Entity, Attribute, and Value, optionally,  and you get an HTTP based World Wide Web of Structured Linked Data.
>>
>>
>> This is why conflating RDF and Linked Data has nothing but downside IMHO.
>>     
>
> It all depends to whom one is speaking Kingsley. To me EAV does not say much. To OO programmers
> attribute values often gets them thinking somewhere along the right lines. 
>   

"Value" is clearer than "Object".

A Value can be a Reference or a Literal.

A Reference can be a Name or an Address.

RDF (which I use extensively) is a problem when it comes to value 
proposition articulation. Its way too prone to the kind of thread that's 
making me miss Brazil vs. Netherlands (right now).

Anyway, I  am talking about the most basic foundation for Linked Data. 
It doens't need RDF overhang.

Simple story:

An HTTP Name for the things you deem worthy of describing and then 
sharing with others via a network (e.g. World Wide Web).
Application of said Names to Description Subject, its Attributes, and 
Attribute Values.

Do that and we can Link and Lookup stuff across an HTTP network, really 
simple!
> I think it may be best to think in terms of arrows between things, as shown below. I think
> since the 60ies everyone at the age of 5 starts learning about mappings between objects, these
> mappings are arrows, and are very easy to understand.
>
>
>   
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
> All of these are ok with me. I also like RDF, it means many things, and
> most of all Reality Distortion Field. Because as you know, our view of
> reality is very distorted (just think of how people 2000 years ago saw the world),
> and so to get to understand things better we need to enter what will seem 
> a reality distortion field from our very limited point of view.
>   

BTW -- Richard packs a goatee these days. Need a temporal dimension for 
richer representation LOL!


Kingsley
>
> 	Henry
>
>
>
>
>   


-- 

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 Friday, 2 July 2010 13:49:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 07:42:21 UTC