Re: Has ISSUE-66 been properly addressed?

On 8/8/14 4:19 PM, Erik Wilde wrote:
> hello markus.
>
> On 2014-08-08, 2:43 , Markus Lanthaler wrote:
>> ISSUE-66 [1] was raised by Erik. There have been lots of discussions 
>> and as
>> far as I can tell, Ruben has implemented all feedback in the spec 
>> apart my
>> comment in [2]. I don't see that as a blocker though. Has this issue 
>> been
>> adequately addressed?
>> I'm primarily asking you, Erik, here (CCed) as you raised this issue 
>> in the
>> first place but of course everyone is welcome to comment.
>
> i am fine with what was proposed (thanks, ruben, for your 
> suggestions), and apologize for the traffic volume. i was trying 
> (unsuccessfully) to avoid the well-known perma-discussion, 
> accusations, and conspiracy theories.
>
> my only point was to raise the issue that i meet a lot of people who 
> are not aware of the fact that linked data has a narrow definition, 
> and just understand the term as "data that is linked". explaining this 
> is, imho, the price you have to pay when you use very natural-language 
> term to mean something specific.
>
> over and out,
>
> dret.
>
>
Erik,

There's nothing wrong with long discussion if at the end we uncover 
oversights and/or misconceptions etc..

In this case, in a new context, we have discerned the following:

1. Issues relating to RDF as a formalization of what exists vs RDF a 
prescription of how things MUST be done -- this is what using RDF 
without knowing RDF boils down to

2. SPARQL is an optional implementation vehicle for the denotation and 
connotation requirements of HTTP URIs as outlined in TimBL's Linked Data 
meme

3. The World Wide Web, from inception, has always been about the 
concepts denoted by the literals "RDF" and "Linked Data" .

I doubt anyone, once presented with ample background material, could 
seriously dispute the fact that the Web was always medium in which:

1. HTTP URIs denote things
2. HTTP URLs denote documents that bear connotation of things
3. Every hyperlink (HTTP URI) explicitly or implicitly denotes a 
relationship property (or predicate).

Note: the denotation relation is implicit (rather than explicit) in 
regards to RDF, and this does lead to confusion since it is rarely 
illustrated [1] . You can't successfully implement an RDF processor 
without factoring in entity denotation.

We all benefit from discussions that lead to clarity, modulo politically 
induced "cognitive dissonance" and some of the dogma that's trailed RDF 
since inception etc.

In my experience, this is about the 3rd really long discussion thread 
(outside the LOD mailing list threads) that's lead to some very useful 
insights contributed by all participants.

I didn't sense any religious dogma in this thread :-)

Links:

[1] 
http://media-cache-cd0.pinimg.com/originals/a9/cf/2b/a9cf2bda4d3f2abdee2e6a2e63343a40.jpg 
-- illustration the *implicit* denotation relation that underlies RDF, 
Linked Data, and the Web .


-- 
Regards,

Kingsley Idehen 
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog 1: http://kidehen.blogspot.com
Personal Weblog 2: 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
Personal WebID: http://kingsley.idehen.net/dataspace/person/kidehen#this