- From: Asbjørn Ulsberg <asbjorn@ulsberg.no>
- Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 13:41:16 +0200
- To: Tomasz Pluskiewicz <tomasz@t-code.pl>
- Cc: Ruben Verborgh <ruben.verborgh@ugent.be>, Hydra <public-hydra@w3.org>
2015-10-01 12:11 GMT+02:00 Tomasz Pluskiewicz <tomasz@t-code.pl>: > October 1 2015 11:50 AM, "Ruben Verborgh" <ruben.verborgh@ugent.be> wrote: > >> RDF is a means, not a goal. >> RDF enables self-descriptiveness, which is a goal. > > I really like this statement. Great summary of your reply. I agree. It's exactly what I think and feel as well. I just don't think it's made explicit enough. Having design goals are important when creating a specification, so that when there are doubts about which direction to go, the design goals can guide you to make the right decision. If everyone agrees on a set of design goals, it's much easier to end discussions and reaching consensus by just pointing to them. > Sure, Hydra should be accessible to people without intimate > knowledge of the Semantic Web but at the same time we > should emphasize the fact that RDF is the underlying > technology that makes self-descriptiveness possible. Absolutely. I see no conflict here. > A lot of people coming to Hydra are new to RDF but that > doesn't mean that they have to stay that way. No, but I think it's important to optimize the specification and serialization for people who will "accidentally" stumble across Hydra in random HTTP API's so they can read it, make sense of it and actually like it, without having any knowledge of RDF whatsoever. What better way to "sell" the concept of RDF than accidentally discovering that what makes Hydra and JSON-LD work is an invisible, conceptual meta-model called Resource Description Framework? -- Asbjørn Ulsberg -=|=- asbjorn@ulsberg.no «He's a loathsome offensive brute, yet I can't look away»
Received on Friday, 2 October 2015 11:41:44 UTC