Re: ldp-ISSUE-15 (sharing binary resources and metadata): sharing binary resources and metadata [Linked Data Platform core]

On 5 Oct 2012, at 01:22, Ashok Malhotra <> wrote:

> Kingsley, I agree with Erik.  Resource is the term everyone seems to agree on.
> And "entity", too, is overloaded.  For example the "Entity-Relationship model"
> On an earlier point you made, I agree that "denotes" is a good word.
> So, a URI denotes a resource, which may have several representations.
> All the best, Ashok

+1 Let's please stick to vocabulary well understood in the semantic web
space. Debates there have gone on for years, and there is no need to duplicate
them here. By all means if someone feels like writing an introductory book
for people coming from different traditions into this work, then do it: you'll
probably sell a lot of books and make a nice sum. But whatever convention we
choose is going to be deemed arbitrary - that is what conventions are: a selection
among arbitrary options, in order to facilitate coordination. Using non semantic
web or webbish vocabulary is just going to confuse people in the semweb side
and people in the other spaces.


> On 10/4/2012 4:06 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>> On 10/4/12 6:49 PM, Wilde, Erik wrote:
>>> hello kingsley.
>>>> +1
>>> thanks!
>>>> To something along the following lines:
>>>>    The Web can enables *entities* to be *denoted* by any (registered)
>>>> URI scheme.
>>>>    These entities can be represented by content associated with any
>>>> (registered) media type.
>>>>    In many cases, applications establish specific (i.e., typed) relations
>>>>    between entities, which can either be under their control, or
>>>> controlled by another authority.
>>> i'd rather stick with the term "resource", which is well established in
>>> many of the core web standards.
>> I know you think that's the case, based on material out there. But, its going to change. Resource is an overloaded term.
>>>  "entity" not so much, so while in the end
>>> it's just a different label for the same concept, it is one that i don't
>>> want to introduce.
>> You aren't really introducing anything, you are realigning with what already exists in literature that precedes the Web [1][2].
>>>  and i am not quite sure what you think you're getting
>>> out of using this different label?
>> Clarity is always my fundamental goal, use of existing (pre Web) terminology for the same fundamental concepts so that bridges can be built with other communities en route to a cohesive continuum. Disconnecting existing communities (many of which have long mastered these concepts) via choice of terminology ultimately stifles adoption.
>> Links:
>> 1. -- Entity modelling
>> 2. -- a related discussion on the ontolog forum that actually reached amicable conclusion re. this matter.
>>> cheers,
>>> dret.

Social Web Architect

Received on Friday, 5 October 2012 08:30:13 UTC