Re: ldp-ISSUE-33 (pagination): how to structure functionality

>>> if your goal is to build an RDF-centric version of XForms, then you can do
>>> >that and XForms would be a useful thing to look at and see what worked
>>> >well, and what didn't. however, i'd say that doing this is outside of the
>>> >scope of the WG, and all we can hope for is to use existing specs. URI
>>> >Templates are different from XForms in that the model is much simpler that
>>> >XML or RDF; it's just a bunch of name/value pairs
>> RDF is a simple as name/value pairs, IMHO, and way simpler than XML.
>> In the primer that LDP produces, we need to convey this message, I believe.
>> anyway ....:)  
> Yes, but RDF and XML are not comparable things, hence the eternal confusion.


I wasn't confusing RDF and XML, and wasn't trying to re-open that discussion --- honestly !! :) I just wanted to be positive about our RDF (rather than XML) foundations - to be pleased about them infact!

As regards your other email about inferencing, I understand your point (although I am not from a 'semantics' background as such). I was just saying that too much about the "I" word is not good for uptake. That's an understandable position, don't you think ?  


> RDF is a conflation of:
> 1. Data Model -- webby entity relationship model endowed with explicit semantics (this enables the construction of self-describing resources)
> 2. Data Representation Syntaxes
> 3. Data Serialization Formats.
> Coincidentally, I gave a short presentation [1] about this issue of conflation, last night.
> Links:
> 1. - Linked Data, RDF, and the Semantic Web
> 2. -- Entity Relationship Model and the Unified View of Data (about Peter Chen's 1976 dissertation)
> 3. -- Peter Chen's actual dissertation.
> -- 
> Regards,
> Kingsley Idehen	
> Founder & CEO
> OpenLink Software
> Company Web:
> Personal Weblog:
> Twitter/ handle: @kidehen
> Google+ Profile:
> LinkedIn Profile:

Received on Thursday, 15 November 2012 18:54:39 UTC