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

Thanks Andy.  See below -

[Andy]
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]
Ok.  So, let's use the "cross-boundary" meta-data you're referring to as 
the starting point.  I don't see a mechanism in the submission that 
provides axiomatic constraints around that.  e.g.: that service 
discovery is explicitly included in what you call "content" or 
explicitly excluded in what you call "content".
*
*Sort of circling back to my thread with Arnaud, I see the submission 
from IBM, the charter, and I'm unclear on the axiomatic constraints 
around this particular standardization effort.  As an example, it seems 
to me as of now that interpretation of Charter and Submission per Arnaud 
is that an implementer MUST implement RDF/XML to be compliant with 
whatever standard results.  If this is the case, it should be stated 
explicitly somewhere.  If it's not the case, then it should also be 
stated somewhere.  While I see the requirement as a problem (and it 
seems that some others may too, but not that clear), that may be just me 
and no one else in which case I'll just let the topic go.  But, the 
ambiguity, IMHO, is a problem that would extend beyond my subjective 
opinion.  Comments from Henry, Idehen, and others on this thread, I 
believe, validate that this ambiguity exists.

At this point, I'll REALLY let it go and if the cause is important 
enough, someone else will chime in.

Best.
*
*On 8/8/12 11:43 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>
>
> 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
>
>