- From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
- Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 16:12:51 +0200
- To: "Wilde, Erik" <Erik.Wilde@emc.com>
- Cc: "public-ldp-wg@w3.org" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
On 8 Aug 2012, at 08:50, "Wilde, Erik" <Erik.Wilde@emc.com> wrote: > hello kingsley. > > On 2012-08-08 3:10 , "Kingsley Idehen" <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote: >> A tree is a rooted graph. At the base you'll find a graph. > > so you're following henry's reasoning that because everything somehow can > be mapped to a graph, everything naturally "is" a graph? That's not my reasoning. I am agreeing with you that these systems are isomorphic. (I tend to think that graphs are in fact pretty natural and the simplest building blocks but that's neither here nor there). Since they are isomorphic they say the same thing. You just need to do the work of mapping one to the other. But none of these other systems have built the specifications, tools and know how to make this work with the web as well as the RDF semantics has. > again, i'd advise > you to look at the IETF registry and take a look of what's there and see > how much sense some of these formats would make when represented as a > graph in a generalized graph notation. more importantly, anything can be > mapped to anything, but this doesn't tell us anything about the things > we're mapping. There are an infinite mappings of course. You can map a carrot to an atom if you wish. Those that interest us are meaning preserving of course. > >>> - there is the "Linked Data is based on RDF" perspective which is shared >>> by most people, then >> It isn't but I can't force you to accept this view point. I am confident >> that in due course you will realize why this is the case. > > simply google for "define linked data" and see what people are writing. in my view Linked Data is based on RDF semantics, not on RDF/XML syntax. I think that is widely understood. More below on why: > >>> - there's the "linked data is just data that's linked on the web" >> Yes, and then you have to hone into the definition of data and how its >> represented. > > that's where you lose me. all we need for this generalized view is a way > how data can link to other data, so any data that has the capability to > include links qualifies. all REST needs is the capability for clients to > find hypermedia controls in representations. Yes, but the world is huge and data can be infinitely varied. So you need to be able to reason with data that is linked for example, even if you can only partially understand it. This is where the Semantic Web stack has already done a huge amount of work. Put it differently: Linked data is about links. A links is an arrow: you need to know what is being linked to what and how . Ie you need to know the subject, the relation and the object of the link. If you don't have that you don't have linked data. You need to do this in a global namespace, so you need the named things to be named with URIs. > >> Linked Data is about whole data representation via an >> Entity-Attribute-Value data model enhanced with de-referencable URIs. >> Linked Data uses de-referencable URIs to denote observation subjects, >> their attributes, and attribute values (optionally). It also uses the >> same URIs to identify web resources and then, via indirection (explicit >> or implicit), it associates a URI with a web resource that bears the >> description of said URIs referent. > > you keep repeating this without ever substantiating it. i have never seen > this definition of linked data before, and just repeating that this is > what linked data really is does not help to make the case why you think of > it that way. Yes, if you want to invent new models, then you can go with Kingseley and invent new vocabulary, or mix and match old and new. Partly in order to avoid the strain of having to do that, I think we should stick carefully to RDF and the tools, vocabularies and systems it has created. > > and like i said earlier, we as a group should not spend too many cycles > (re)defining linked data, this is not what we have been chartered to do. indeed. A lot better to go with what we have than to keep re-inventing things. > > cheers, > > dret. > > Social Web Architect http://bblfish.net/
Received on Wednesday, 8 August 2012 14:13:29 UTC