Re: More Thoughts on Links and Operation Subclasses

On 2/3/14 4:15 PM, Markus Lanthaler wrote:
> On Monday, February 03, 2014 10:05 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>> On 2/3/14 3:19 PM, Markus Lanthaler wrote:
>>> I think the biggest problem is how this stuff is documented and the fact
>>> that people won't read it:-)  It's not a contract. It's a hint. Clients
> have
>>> to interpret the response in any case. Some will be more tolerant, some
> will
>>> break when they don't get back what they expected. That's similar to how
>>> people often run into troubles when parts of a website get redesigned
> and
>>> "nothing works anymore" because it looks different or they have to take
>>> different paths.
>> This is where TURTLE is your friend. The narrative is more readable in
>> TURTLE that it will ever be in JSON-LD.
> Sorry, but I don't see how this is relevant in this context.

It is utterly relevant. Do you want this stuff to be readable or not? Or 
do you want to wishfully hope that Hydra's bent for JSON-LD will make 
this RDF based vocabulary readable.

As I told you a while back, you cannot reduce Semantics to Syntax. If 
the Semantics are invisible the discussion is lost in syntax.

>
>
>> JSON-LD is for the coders that don't want to make a TURTLE parser etc..
>> But, to write good code you really have to understand what exactly you
>> are doing.
> Right. That applies to just about every technology.

No!

Turtle isn't about coding, in the conventional sense of OO or Procedural 
Programming/coding. It is about making the Semantics and the Syntax 
interplay clear so that Relation Semantics  [1] are clearer for a given 
Relationship [2] (represented by RDF statements [3] )

The subject->predicate-object aspect of RDF is referred to as abstract 
syntax for a reason. This is about entities, relationship participation, 
relationship roles, and relationship types (i.e., relations).

RDF is a language i.e., a composite of signs, syntax, and semantics. You 
can inscribe (write) RDF using a variety of notations (or so 
called-concrete syntaxes).

If you keep on missing the point re. JSON-LD, then look at it this way, 
would you opt to speak an obscure language to an audience that speaks 
some other language even though all languages are ultimately about 
signs, syntax, and semantics for encodiing and decoding information?

>
>
>> I encourage you to discuss in TURTLE so that more folks get involved in
>> these discussions.
> Yep.. Ruben will convert the examples to Turtle and we will probably include
> both versions in the spec eventually.

Good!

We don't need a TURTLE vs JSON-LD vs any other notation distraction re. 
Hydra. Let's focus on the entity types and relation types that 
constitute the vocabulary in question. Examples should be printed in 
TURTLE for broad and productive participation (assuming that is an 
actual goal).
>
>
>> I make this comment because there was a nice series
>> of points from 'John Yaya' that kinda got lost in the JSON-LD examples
>> he made. More folks would zone in if those examples are the more
>> readable TURTLE :-)
> Do you have a pointer? That probably happened on another list. At least he
> didn't post to public-hydra.

I as referring to the post denoted by the URL 
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-hydra/2014Feb/0000.html> .

Links:

[1] http://bit.ly/1cqm7Hs -- RDF Relation
[2] http://bit.ly/1fq6NZY -- RDF Relationship
[3] http://bit.ly/1e4F5VM -- RDF Statement .


>
>
> Cheers,
> Markus
>
>
> --
> Markus Lanthaler
> @markuslanthaler


-- 

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