W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ldp-wg@w3.org > October 2012

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

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2012 08:05:20 -0400
Message-ID: <506ECD00.5070403@openlinksw.com>
To: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
CC: public-ldp-wg@w3.org
On 10/5/12 7:58 AM, Henry Story wrote:
> 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.

I don't think I am seeking any kind of *silly nomenclature* debate here, 
or anywhere else.

Again, I am only interested in clarity through terminology that build 
bridges to other communities. My comments are always loaded and driven 
by experience across many realms, as I am sure you know by now.

My comments and positions aren't hard to find online. Luckily, history 
is building up so you can easily correlate my positions re. these 
matters. I am interested in learning from past mistakes and getting them 
fixed when moving forward. That's it.

>
>>
>>> 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.

Not my point.

> It has evolved some concepts that are designed to work well with REST, and
> it is easy to see that.

Not my point of concern.

>   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.

There you make a fundamental mistake. I am not targeting an audience 
with "R-D-F Reflux Syndrome" I am more interested in a realm of folks 
that already understand this subject matter, the only thing that 
confuses them is new terminology disconnected from mainstream literature 
etc..

>
>>>   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.

And they are known and understood by many outside the communities you 
outline.

Kingsley
>
>
>>
>> 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/
>


-- 

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






Received on Friday, 5 October 2012 12:05:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:17:32 UTC