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

Sorry, I meant "W3C strives" obviously.
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Co-chair of the LDP WG


Arnaud Le Hors/Cupertino/IBM@IBMUS wrote on 08/07/2012 08:03:56 AM:

> From: Arnaud Le Hors/Cupertino/IBM@IBMUS
> To: public-ldp-wg@w3.org, 
> Date: 08/07/2012 08:12 AM
> Subject: 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 
ofthese 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.
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> >