Re: LDP interfaces in Java (based on Jena and JAX-RS)

On 8/6/12 1:15 PM, Reza B'Far (Oracle) wrote:
> Idehen -
>
> [Idehen]
> Is it accurate is I summarize all of this as boiling down to 
> decoupling RDF from Linked Data?
> [Reza]
> I think this is ABSOLUTELY key to me.  I confirm that, from my 
> perspective, this decoupling is crucial to a standardization effort.  
> Doesn't mean that RDF is excluded or even that it is not a focus, 
> rather that it is treated separately in the standardization process.  
> I mentioned this on the call this morning: Prov has done a good job of 
> this decoupling Prov-DM from Prov-O (OWL).

+1

>
> To this end, and your other comments, I would propose that we arrive 
> at a taxonomy that has, at least, the following -
>
> LDP-DM - Some Data Model that represents the domain we're trying to 
> address independent of any other sem-web standards (RDF, SPARQL, etc.)

+1

We already have the entity-attribute-value model on a platter, and 
broadly understood my most that have worked with DBMS technology over 
the last 40+ years. Thus, the worst we can do is repeat the fatal 
mistake of creating a complimentary DBMS technology that isn't 
instinctively recognized by DBMS practitioners.

> LDP-RDF - Linkage of RDF to LDP-DM
> [Others]
>
> This is the model that Prov went with and I'm not saying anything 
> original (essentially copying from that WG).  But, I think it was the 
> right approach: decouple your data/domain model that represent the 
> necessary abstractions from the various other lower level pieces and 
> apparatus.

Yes, the Web is fundamentally about the beautiful art of abstraction and 
loose coupling. What's TimBL delivered in his meme is how URIs 
ultimately address key challenges associated with:

1. Data Representation
2. Data Access
3. Data Integration.

Note, TimBL cleverly stays clear of Data Management in appreciation of 
its 40+ years worth of research and history etc.. Basically, the issues 
above are the biggest headaches of all re. data de-silo-fication :-)

Re points 1-3 above, I sum up Linked Data as taking us beyond open 
rdbms-specific connectivity to open data connectivity. Basically, we 
have URIs (hyperlinks) as powerful data sources names that are decoupled 
from data access protocol, data representation syntaxes, and data 
serialization formats.

Kingsley

>
> Best.
>
> On 8/6/12 8:57 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>> On 8/6/12 11:13 AM, Erik.Wilde@emc.com wrote:
>>> hello ashok.
>>>
>>> On 2012-08-06 17:03 , "Ashok Malhotra" <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com> 
>>> wrote:
>>>> I am involved in a couple of standards groups where the data is in 
>>>> XML or
>>>> JSON
>>>> and accessed using REST.  These folks are wrestling with he same 
>>>> kinds of
>>>> issues
>>>> that motivated us to the start the LDP WG:  collections, large 
>>>> amounts of
>>>> data,
>>>> concurrent updates, etc.
>>> yup, that's exactly where we are, and what we hoped to see addressed by
>>> the working group. however, when i raised the issue that with the 
>>> move to
>>> REST it would make sense to remove the exclusive focus on RDF, the
>>> majority of the WG was of the opinion that we should only focus on RDF.
>>>
>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2012Jul/0029.html 
>>> is one
>>> of the threads in the archive where i was proposing to include more of
>>> REST. since i have tried already, and should probably tread lightly
>>> because of my status as a co-chair, i decided to not try anymore and
>>> assume that the WG is focusing on RDF. you're of course free to discuss
>>> the issue again, but it seems that so far the majority of the WG is 
>>> happy
>>> with the RDF focus.
>>>
>>> cheers,
>>>
>>> dret.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Is it accurate is I summarize all of this as boiling down to 
>> decoupling RDF from Linked Data?
>>
>> As I stated in an earlier post, Linked Data is about:
>>
>> 1. URIs as denotation (naming) mechanism for entities (web, 
>> real-world, or abstract)
>> 2. URIs/URLs as identifiers for web resources that describe URI 
>> referents
>> 3. Structured Data representation constrained by the EAV/CR or RDF 
>> data models + URI behavior described above.
>>
>>
>> There's an artificial barrier created between Linked Data and REST 
>> whenever one conflates it with RDF -- which isn't about REST.
>>
>> To conclude, shouldn't this group address the decoupling of Linked 
>> and RDF i.e., make the coupling loose? There's everything to gain and 
>> nothing to lose. In a sense, the first tangible deliverable from this 
>> group could be an official decoupling of Linked Data and RDF. Such a 
>> decoupling will ultimately compliment work that will emerge from the 
>> current RDF workgroup etc..
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>


-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen