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

Arnaud -

I read RDF in the charter and your email (as well as others) as the 
literal meaning of the RDF spec which is the superset of RDF data model, 
RDF/XML, etc. (everything here - 
http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-schema-20040210/)

So, I'm trying to reconcile what you referred to in your email about the 
charter (http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/charter) with RDF spec 
(http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-schema-20040210/).  To that end, it 
would be EXTREMELY helpful [I would deem necessary, but that would need 
consensus as you've pointed out] if the the refinement you've put in 
your email becomes explicit: that the dependency is on the part of RDF 
set of specifications which represents the data model versus the other 
stuff (RDF/XML, etc.).

Here is a question that I have during reconciliation -
Charter says: " *RDF*, the Resource Description Framework, is a W3C 
Recommended <http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/> general technique for 
conveying information. It has a handful of syntaxes, including RDF/XML 
<http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar/>, RDFa 
<http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-core/>, and Turtle 
<http://www.w3.org/TR/turtle/>, any of which can be used to transmit RDF 
statements. The items about which information is expressed in RDF 
documents are identified with URIs (eg, 
http://example.com/products/Widget-71) but the existing RDF 
specifications do not cover dereferencing them. RDF is the basis for 
Linked Data <http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html> and the 
Semantic Web <http://www.w3.org/standards/semanticweb/>. "
What is "RDF" above?  Just the data model (abstractions and concepts of 
triples, etc.)? or does that include other things including RDF\XML?

Regards

On 8/7/12 9:52 AM, Arnaud Le Hors wrote:
> Reza,
>
> I think we would gain from setting some common terminology we all use 
> consistently so we can better understand each other.
>
> It seems that when you write "RDF" you mean the RDF/XML format, is 
> that correct?
>
> When I say RDF, I mean the RDF data model, which can be serialized 
> using a variety of formats, including RDF/XML, Turtle, and others.
> I think this is consistent with the way the W3C uses the term, even 
> though it's true that many still confuses RDF and RDF/XML because of 
> the initial introduction of RDF via the RDF/XML format.
>
> This being said, the charter is clear about the dependency on RDF - 
> the data model -, while recognizing the existence of the various 
> formats. In that context, the RDF WG is working on a JSON format for 
> RDF and I certainly expect the LDP to allow for the use of that format.
>
> At the same time, I don't expect this WG to try and define a ubber 
> platform that would address all possible data models.
>
> I hope that helps.
> --
> Arnaud  Le Hors - Co-chair of the LDP WG
>
>
>
>
> From: "Reza B'Far (Oracle)" <reza.bfar@oracle.com>
> To: public-ldp-wg@w3.org,
> Date: 08/07/2012 08:40 AM
> Subject: Re: is linked data about RDF or EAV or just structured data?
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> Arnaud -
>
> Thanks for clarifying the W3C procedures.  Questions -
> 1. When I read the charter, it is not clear that anything outside of 
> RDF is explicitly excluded.  For example, it is not clear that you 
> could not use JSON, simply that RDF must be an option.  Are you saying 
> that usage of RDF is explicitly made the goal by charter and that 
> similar representations of triples must be explicitly forbidden to be 
> used with the standard?
> 2. If the discussion is about RDF being optional versus required, I 
> don't see that at odds with the charter.  Can you please clarify?
>
> Clearly, forming another working group or community group is not 
> productive.  So, the way I'm reading your email, in a more straight 
> forward way, it means that "welcome, you're new and don't understand 
> that we're already far enough that we're requiring RDF to be part of 
> the standard".  I'm fine with that.  I just want to understand it very 
> clearly that the charter is explicitly excluding other representations 
> of triples, etc. than RDF. and that, furthermore, the charter requires 
> usage of mechanisms in RDF to build the specific requirements in 
> Linked Data.
>
> Your clarification is appreciated.
>
> Regards.
>
>
> On 8/7/12 8:03 AM, Arnaud Le Hors wrote:
> 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>_ 
> <mailto:reza.bfar@oracle.com>wrote on 08/07/2012 07:40:06 AM:
>
> > From: "Reza B'far" _<reza.bfar@oracle.com>_ 
> <mailto:reza.bfar@oracle.com>
> > To: "Wilde, Erik" _<Erik.Wilde@emc.com>_ <mailto:Erik.Wilde@emc.com>,
> > Cc: _"public-ldp-wg@w3.org"_ 
> <mailto:public-ldp-wg@w3.org>_<public-ldp-wg@w3.org>_ 
> <mailto:public-ldp-wg@w3.org>, Kingsley Idehen
> > _<kidehen@openlinksw.com>_ <mailto: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>_ 
> <mailto:Erik.Wilde@emc.com>wrote:
> >
> > > hello kingsley.
> > >
> > > On 2012-08-07 16:17 , "Kingsley Idehen" _<kidehen@openlinksw.com>_ 
> <mailto: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.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>