- From: John Walker <john.walker@semaku.com>
- Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2014 23:30:12 +0300
- To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Cc: Ruben Verborgh <ruben.verborgh@ugent.be>, Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu>, "public-hydra@w3.org" <public-hydra@w3.org>
Hi David On 5 Aug 2014, at 22:43, David Booth <david@dbooth.org> wrote: > Hi John, > > On 08/05/2014 03:21 PM, John Walker wrote: >> Hi Dave >> >> How about an official W3C Linked Data Primer to expand upon the ideas >> presented in the glossary? > > There is a draft Linked Data Platform Primer: > http://www.w3.org/TR/ldp-primer/ > > But I think a more general Linked Data primer could certainly be helpful also. Are you volunteering to start a draft? :) > If people think such a thing would be useful, I don't mind to help with it. I think enough has been written on the subject already, so hopefully would be more curational/editorial task than crafting from scratch... >> >> I know there is the Best Practices for Publishing Linked Data [1] but >> that seems to be aimed at a more specific audience. >> >> Also I think the work Ruben et al. Are doing is proof that SPARQL is >> not the only way to query the web of data, so getting the wording >> right here is important. Avoiding a lot of the acronyms and >> abbreviations, or introducing them gradually, would help make such a >> document more accessible to the Linked Data™ n00b. > > I personally agree, and I hope he'll succeed in drafting something that reaches consensus. But I would also advise caution, since such an effort can snowball unexpectedly. Now you're just making it sound like a 'fun' challenge :-p John > > David > >> >> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/ld-bp/ >> >> Regards, >> >> John >> >> On 5 Aug 2014, at 21:02, David Booth <david@dbooth.org> wrote: >> >>> On 08/05/2014 05:07 AM, Ruben Verborgh wrote: >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> Jumping in, as this is very relevant for the Linked Data >>>> Fragments spec [1]. In fact, this issue appearing after I drafted >>>> an introductory section called “What Linked Data is” might not be >>>> a coincidence. (And it's very good timing in any case.) >>>> >>>> Let me start out by saying I was totally oblivious of ”non-RDF >>>> Linked Data”. >>> >>> That's like saying you were totally oblivious to the existence of >>> the non-URI based World Wide Web. There's a good reason why you >>> were oblivious to their existence: they do not exist! >>> >>>> I.e., I had always assumed that Linked Data is in RDF; probably >>>> because Tim's original principles explicitly mention this [2]. >>>> Then again, we all know the principles are quite vague: - RDF* >>>> and SPARQL are mentioned between parentheses. Did this mean >>>> "e.g., RDF*, SPARQL", or "i.e., RDF*, SPARQL"? That's an >>>> important difference, and we'll likely never know. - Where is the >>>> asterisk after RDF ever resolved? Maybe I just missed the >>>> majority of the discussion; i.e., posts like [3] were written in >>>> 2009. >>>> >>>> That said, me being in the community for 4 years and never >>>> having heard about (or being selectively deaf towards) non-RDF >>>> Linked Data, means something at least. I'd dare to say that the >>>> majority of people do assume that Linked Data is just done with >>>> RDF. So to what extent is it then necessary to clarify this? >>> >>> Unfortunately, it has become painfully evident that there are a few >>> people who do not realize that Linked Data implies RDF (or who wish >>> that it didn't). For this reason, I think it is important to be >>> clear about it. >>> >>>> >>>> In that context, Dan Brickley sent a useful comment to me: “RDF >>>> is to Linked Data as HTML is to the classic Web, maybe”. >>>> >>>>>> i was specifically trying not to get that discussion going. >>>>>> just asking whether there should be some >>>>>> definition/clarification of the term, just to let readers >>>>>> know what it means in the context of the spec/community. if >>>>>> you define a broad term to mean a narrow thing, then this >>>>>> might be helpful to avoid possible confusion. >>>> >>>> What do you think about the current introduction to the triple >>>> pattern fragments spec [1]? Not knowing about this issue yet, I >>>> phrased it as: >>>> >>>> By publishing Linked Data [LINKED-DATA], we enable automated >>>> clients to consume information. In practice, this information is >>>> available as RDF triples […] >>>> >>>> So it leaves the question open whether non-RDF Linked Data >>>> exists; it just says that, in practice, it will be RDF. Good >>>> enough? >>> >>> No. It is important to *not* leave that question open. That was >>> the whole point of the huge debates that occurred about this -- >>> debates that (thankfully) finally ended with the official >>> publication of the W3C Linked Data Glossary. >>> >>>> >>>>> I think a definition could help. I suggest copying the one >>>>> from the W3C Linked Data Glossary verbatim (and referencing >>>>> that document), rather than trying to craft a new one and >>>>> risking another long debate about what it should be. >>>> >>>> Sadly, I think that definition is quite complicated. Here it is >>>> at full length, copied from [4]: >>>> >>>> Linked Data >>>> >>>> A pattern for hyperlinking machine-readable data sets to each >>>> other using Semantic Web techniques, especially via the use of >>>> RDF and URIs. Enables distributed SPARQL queries of the data sets >>>> and a browsing or discovery approach to finding information (as >>>> compared to a search strategy). Linked Data is intended for >>>> access by both humans and machines. Linked Data uses the RDF >>>> family of standards for data interchange (e.g., RDF/XML, RDFa, >>>> Turtle) and query (SPARQL). If Linked Data is published on the >>>> public Web, it is generally called Linked Open Data. See also >>>> [Linked Data Principles]. >>>> >>>> It forces you to understand: - Semantic Web - RDF - URIs - SPARQL >>>> to make sense out of it. >>>> >>>> And personally, I wonder to what extent SPARQL is part of Linked >>>> Data; and does that mean the query language, the protocol, or >>>> both? >>> >>> I agree that that definition is not ideal. And maybe you could >>> come up with a simpler definition that would be acceptable. But >>> please be aware that the term "Linked Data" is very important to >>> the semantic web community, and there are people with strong >>> feelings about it, so crafting an alternate definition runs a risk >>> of long debates. >>> >>>> >>>> On the technical level, nothing prohibits us from making Linked >>>> Data Fragments broader than RDF. We'd have to be very careful, >>>> however, that the concept would still be sufficiently meaningful; >>>> that it doesn't become hollow by broadening it. >>>> >>>> For triple pattern fragments, by definition, we are limited to >>>> the RDF triple model. That does not mean that other kinds of >>>> fragments would have such a strong dependency; so other fragment >>>> types we define might be independent of RDF. >>> >>> I don't see a fundamental problem with that if there is sufficient >>> motivation for it. Even though LDF was designed for Linked Data, I >>> think it would be okay if it also happens to work with *other* >>> data. But it is important to avoid implying that there is any such >>> thing as "non-RDF Linked Data", because that would just cause >>> confusion and reignite unnecessary debates. >>> >>> David >>> >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Ruben >>>> >>>> [1] http://www.hydra-cg.com/spec/latest/linked-data-fragments/ >>>> [2] http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html [3] >>>> http://cloudofdata.com/2009/07/does-linked-data-need-rdf/ [4] >>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/ld-glossary/#linked-data >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> >
Received on Wednesday, 6 August 2014 20:31:03 UTC