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

On 08/08/12 19:19, Reza B'Far (Oracle) wrote:
>
> [Andy]
> Finding the balance of flexibility and commonality is important.  i
> don't think we have advanced things if we end up with a metamodel but
> isolated islands of connected apps because different groupings use
> different serializations.
> [Reza]
> I think this is a key statement that I don't agree with and would like
> to see how many of the people here do or do not agree with. My point is
> not religious:  I don't care about RDF one way or the other.  What I'm
> saying is that it's completely impractical if we're proposing that all
> the people in the world who have existing data in much more prevalent
> formats are to convert their serialization models to RDF/XML.  I think
> this, by itself, will make the probability of wide adoption of this
> standard go close to 0.  It's like asking people to go convert all their
> data.  It's impractical.  Won't happen.  Costs too much.  Are you saying
> that we're going to have lots of large data providers all of sudden say
> "wow, there is this cool new standard, let me go spend a billion dollars
> to convert all my data to it so that it can be linked to and I can go
> link to other people".

I specifically said:
"""
I'm not proposing everything is in RDF
"""

I suggest that the item (the content) is whatever format you want.  It 
the part that can be understood *across* boundaries that is in RDF.  No 
one is asked to convert anything.

[[ Reza
I would say 90% of the value is still in Prov-DM which provides a 
conceptual model so that implementers think about the structural design 
of their systems
]]

 From this I read that you want portability of ideas and concepts.  I 
hope we do not just define an abstract architecture because if we do, we 
have not done anything new as existing approaches are just fine.  I want 
to make computer systems interoperate.

	Andy

Received on Wednesday, 8 August 2012 18:44:07 UTC