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

On 5 Oct 2012, at 13:45, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote:

> On 10/5/12 4:29 AM, Henry Story wrote:
>> On 5 Oct 2012, at 01:22, Ashok Malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com> 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.
> 
> Is this the target audience? You know that statement opens up a can of worms, one I am not going to push right now.

The easiest way to steal a jewel from someone would be to pretend to the owner 
that it is ugly, and instead give them fake plastic jewellery instead in exchange.


> 
>> Debates there have gone on for years, and there is no need to duplicate
>> them here.
> 
> Yes, but not for the reason you espouse. You are making an assumption about the target audience that I think is actually incorrect. I don't believe the semantic web community (whatever that actually means) is the target audience.

I don't think we want silly nomenclature debates 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.
> 
> Again, you are mistaken about the target audience.
> 
> You this this is abobut [LDP] -->[Semantic Web].
> 
> I actually believe it's about: [LDP] --> [Rest of the Pragmatic World] .

The semantic web is very pragmatic, I am using it all the time.
It has evolved some concepts that are designed to work well with REST, and
it is easy to see that. There is no need to play into delaying tactics 
by trying to please people who will never be pleased whatever you do, however
you explain it. 

> 
>>  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.
> 
> People outside the semantic web community already understand the following:
> 
> 1. entities
> 2. entity relationships
> 3. entity relationship semantics
> 4. relations
> 5. relations and state
> 6. identifiers
> 7. name resolution
> 8. structured data representation (via entity relationship graphs)
> 9. data models
> 10. across the wire data serialization formats
> 11. denotation
> 12. connotation
> 13. indirection
> 14. first-order logic
> 12. etc..


Many of the terms are completely acceptable in the Semantic Web and Linked Data vacabulary.


> 
> 
> Kingsley
> 
> 
>> 
>> Henry
>> 
>>> 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. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entity%E2%80%93relationship_model -- Entity modelling
>>>> 2. http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/2012-07/msg00190.html -- a related discussion on the ontolog forum that actually reached amicable conclusion re. this matter.
>>>>> cheers,
>>>>> 
>>>>> dret.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>> Social Web Architect
>> http://bblfish.net/
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Kingsley Idehen	
> Founder & CEO
> OpenLink Software
> Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
> Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
> Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
> Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
> LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

Social Web Architect
http://bblfish.net/