- From: Wilde, Erik <Erik.Wilde@emc.com>
- Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 04:05:42 -0400
- To: "public-ldp-wg@w3.org" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
- CC: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
hello kingsley. > From my vantage point, the data model is the good old > entity-attribute-value model. Every piece of data takes the form of > a 3-tuple (triple). Each part of the the triple is denoted by a URI > with the value part being optional since it can hold literals, typed > literals, or URIs. this, kingsley, is where you are always losing me. on the one hand you say we shouldn't be concerned about the metamodel in general and not focus on RDF specifically (which i think are great points), on the other hand you are proposing a metamodel that is pretty much isomorphic to RDF and, afaict, just a different name for RDF. how do you get from saying "Linked Data should not be tightly bound to RDF" to the conclusion that the metamodel should be a slight generalization of RDF, and not be just up to the choice of the service provider? cheers, dret.
Received on Tuesday, 7 August 2012 08:06:05 UTC