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

Well, the submission is what it is and, yes, it is indeed cast in stone. 
But I think what you're really asking is whether the WG must produce a 
spec that is the same as the submission and the answer is no. If that were 
the case there wouldn't be much point in having a WG. 

The WG is chartered to take the submission and use it as a starting point 
to produce deliverables that satisfy the charter. In this process anything 
can be changed. The default is simply not to. 

While the submission addresses part of the charter it certainly doesn't 
address all of it and for that matter IBM doesn't claim otherwise.

What the WG needs to do is identify the gaps and fill them in, fix what's 
seen as broken, and improve it as much as possible. I think there's plenty 
to do just there. :-)

The requirement for RDF/XML in the submission is in the specification 
(link #1 in the list you posted):

4.2.2 BPR servers MUST provide an application/rdf+xml representation of 
the requested BPR. 

So, if you want to change this requirement you will need to make the case 
for it and get the WG to agree. But you're certainly free to do so.

On a practical level, the motivation for this whole effort in the first 
place was to increase interoperability among RDF implementations by 
defining a level of compliance that is greater than what is currently 
defined by the existing set of RDF standards. From that point of view, I 
don't see how we can get away with not requiring at least one specific 
serialization.
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Chair of the LDP WG


"Reza B'Far (Oracle)" <reza.bfar@oracle.com> wrote on 08/07/2012 12:30:15 
PM:

> From: "Reza B'Far (Oracle)" <reza.bfar@oracle.com>
> To: public-ldp-wg@w3.org, 
> Date: 08/07/2012 12:32 PM
> Subject: 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
> 2. Linked Data Basic Profile Use Cases and Requirements
> 3. Linked Data Basic Profile 1.0 RDF Schema
> 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.
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > >