Modularization - Was[Re: LDP interfaces in Java (based on Jena and JAX-RS)]

Sounds good.  Seems like Erik, you (Idehen), Ashok, and I have some 
rough agreement on what may be needed.

*Chairs*: do we use email as the mechanism to put forth proposals that 
can be discussed and voted on? (for example, formalize this thread as a 
proposal?)

On 8/6/12 11:35 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> 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..
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>