Re: is linked data about RDF or EAV or just structured data?

Hi Reza,

I'm not sure what exactly you'd like to vote on but I'd like to remind 
everyone of a few procedural points:

1. W3C thrives to build consensus. For that reason, decisions are only 
made by votes as a last resort, which isn't to say that we can't have 
polls to get a feeling of where people stand.

2. WGs aren't at liberty to redefine their scope. No vote can change that 
other than that of the Advisory Council after due process.

The LDP charter is clear about the fact the Linked Data Platform this WG 
is to define is about RDF, using IBM's submission as the starting point. 
[1]

So, while I find the discussion interesting, I have to say that If some of 
you are interested in defining a higher level type of platform that is 
independent of the RDF data model you should look to start a different 
group. The W3C now provides for Community Groups [2] that can be easily 
started.

Regards.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/charter
[2] http://www.w3.org/community/about/#cg
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Co-chair of the LDP WG


"Reza B'far" <reza.bfar@oracle.com> wrote on 08/07/2012 07:40:06 AM:

> From: "Reza B'far" <reza.bfar@oracle.com>
> To: "Wilde, Erik" <Erik.Wilde@emc.com>, 
> Cc: "public-ldp-wg@w3.org" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>, Kingsley Idehen 
> <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
> Date: 08/07/2012 07:46 AM
> Subject: Re: is linked data about RDF or EAV or just structured data?
> 
> Folks 
> 
> How about we put some of these to vote as individual axioms?  So, of
> the group agrees, I'll send out individual proposals for axioms that
> will have 1-2 sentences and folks can vote with the traditional +1/-1/0?
> 
> I think such axioms can give us the proper technical constraints 
> around the use-cases if approved
> 
> Best
> 
> On Aug 7, 2012, at 7:30 AM, "Wilde, Erik" <Erik.Wilde@emc.com> wrote:
> 
> > hello kingsley.
> > 
> > On 2012-08-07 16:17 , "Kingsley Idehen" <kidehen@openlinksw.com> 
wrote:
> >> Modulo RDF re. your comments above, since it isn't a format, a media
> >> type still boils down to an entity-attribute-value or attribute=value
> >> structure i.e., 3-tuple or 2-tuple. It just documents the fact in 
prose
> >> as part of the mime type.
> > 
> > i really don' understand how you get to this conclusion. look at the 
IETF
> > registry of media types and you'll see an amazingly wide array of all
> > kinds of models and metamodels people have registered. you find trees,
> > maybe jeni has even bothered to register her LMNL "overlapping tree"
> > format, and all kinds of more generalized or more specialized data 
models.
> > what brings you to the conclusion that media types are in one of these 
two
> > simple classes you are listing? the media type world is so much more
> > colorful than that.
> > 
> > i guess i'll stop wasting mailing list bandwidth for now, since you're
> > going to be on vacation and nobody else seems to get engaged in this
> > debate anyway. i am still failing to see, though, where those 
assertions
> > you are making are coming from, and for my personal vocabulary 
management,
> > i'll conclude that
> > 
> > - there is the "Linked Data is based on RDF" perspective which is 
shared
> > by most people, then
> > - there's the "linked data is just data that's linked on the web"
> > perspective of ashok that i also had for a while, and then
> > - there's your "Linked Data is not RDF, but EAV" perspective, that is 
not
> > something i had heard of before.
> > 
> > cheers,
> > 
> > dret.
> > 
> > 
> 
>