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

Arnaud -

Yes. My concern is the requirement of an implementation to support 
RDF\XML as opposed to leaving serialization optional for the implementer 
so long as the data model is fully supported.  So, I guess I see that as 
a problem with submission if submission includes that a requirement for 
compliant implementation of the standard (which is not clear to me: I 
don't see the requirement of RDF/XML in the link you sent - but, if this 
is explicitly mentioned somewhere, I would appreciate a pointer and your 
patience along with it).

I have read the link you sent below as well as the three embedded links 
within it:

 1. /Linked Data Basic Profile 1.0
    <http://www.w3.org/Submission/2012/SUBM-ldbp-20120326/>/
 2. /Linked Data Basic Profile Use Cases and Requirements
    <http://www.w3.org/Submission/2012/SUBM-ldbpucr-20120326/>/
 3. /Linked Data Basic Profile 1.0 RDF Schema/
    <http://www.w3.org/Submission/2012/SUBM-ldbp-20120326/ldbp.rdf>

So, are you saying that the "submission" is set in stone in technical 
terms at this point?  If so, what is left to do for the WG?

Thanks.

On 8/7/12 12:03 PM, Arnaud Le Hors wrote:
> Are you saying you're concerned about requiring an implementation to 
> support RDF/XML?
>
> I'm afraid the level of this discussion is too high to really lead to 
> anything productive. It would be more productive to talk about the 
> submission [1] and explain exactly what concerns you if anything.
>
> This is true for all of us actually. We're not starting from a blank 
> sheet of paper trying to figure out what we're supposed to do. We have 
> a proposal (the submission) and a charter. The discussion should be 
> based on those two components and revolve around the fundamental 
> question: "does the submission adequately address the charter?" If 
> not, what are the problems with it and what do we need to change to 
> fix it?
>
> Putting my IBM hat on, I'll say that the submission depends on RDF/XML 
> because this currently is the only standard format for RDF we could 
> depend on but the submission encourages support for Turtle and this is 
> oclearly within the charter. Other such formats could be considered.
>
> Regards.
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/Submission/2012/02/
> --
> Arnaud  Le Hors - Software Standards Architect - IBM Software Group
>
>
> "Reza B'Far (Oracle)" <reza.bfar@oracle.com> wrote on 08/07/2012 
> 11:17:52 AM:
>
> > From: "Reza B'Far (Oracle)" <reza.bfar@oracle.com>
> > To: public-ldp-wg@w3.org,
> > Date: 08/07/2012 11:22 AM
> > Subject: Re: is linked data about RDF or EAV or just structured data?
> >
> > Alright.  I'll let other folks raise the concern so I'm not flooding
> > email.  It seems that what you're saying is that the WG is chartered
> > with building a standard that will leverage ALL of RDF (not just the
> > data model part, but everything else too) in a mutually exclusive
> > way to other options (so as to force the implementers to have to
> > support, for example, RDF\XML).  That is a serious concern for me,
> > but if no one else thinks so, I'll rest my case.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > On 8/7/12 11:13 AM, Arnaud Le Hors wrote:
> > Err. I must admit not to be sure where you're going with that question.
> >
> > Rather than trying to paraphrase the charter and risking to
> > introduce some inconsistency I would say that the answer to your
> > question is in the very text you quoted. :-)
> > --
> > Arnaud  Le Hors - Co-chair of the LDP WG
> >
> >
> > "Reza B'Far (Oracle)" <reza.bfar@oracle.com> wrote on 08/07/2012 
> 10:50:21 AM:
> >
> > > From: "Reza B'Far (Oracle)" <reza.bfar@oracle.com>
> > > To: public-ldp-wg@w3.org,
> > > Date: 08/07/2012 10:53 AM
> > > Subject: 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
> > > general technique for conveying information. It has a handful of
> > > syntaxes, including RDF/XML, RDFa, and 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 and
> > > the Semantic Web. "
> > > 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
> > pleaseclarify?
> > > 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> 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 
> whichis 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.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >