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

Re: Linked Data Platform ISSUE-20: What is the base URI of a POSTed document?

From: Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 10:02:08 -0700
To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Cc: public-ldp-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFE261FA5A.C1BB15EA-ON88257A94.005D3EE7-88257A94.005D9427@us.ibm.com>
Hi Kingsley,

I actually agree with you on the fact that RDF and Linked Data are 
different - meaning there is a difference between the two, namely: URIs in 
Linked Data are dereferencable URLs - but I don't think repeating the same 
point over and over is going to make it stick. :-)

So, I kindly request that we all refrain from flooding the mailing list 
with repeats. It just makes it much harder for others to stay on top of 
what's being said without dedicating more time than what is really 
necessary to understand everyone's point of view.

Thank you.
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Software Standards Architect - IBM Software Group


Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote on 10/11/2012 08:53:31 AM:

> From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
> To: public-ldp-wg@w3.org, 
> Date: 10/11/2012 09:01 AM
> Subject: Re: Linked Data Platform ISSUE-20: What is the base URI of 
> a POSTed     document?
> 
> On 10/11/12 11:18 AM, Henry Story wrote:
> > Same here we get RDF tools for free including Jena, Sesame and 
Virtuoso.
> > But if you constantly oppose RDF and linked Data, people may at some
> > point start thinking that Virtuoso is not interested in 
interoperability.
> I am not opposing RDF and Linked Data. Quite the contrary. I am saying 
> we shouldn't conflate them en route to losing on all fronts [1].
> 
> I have been crystal clear about my concerns about RDF and Linked Data 
> for years. RDF is an optional (W3C recommended) route to creating 
> Web-scale Linked Data. That doesn't make Linked Data and RDF isomorphic.
> 
> This thread is an example of how RDF can go wrong since referring to RDF 

> specs in the context of Linked Data level problem isn't the solution. 
> The fact that Andy, you, and I can agree and disagree in such nuanced 
> ways is the kind of problem that ultimately manifests when RDF and 
> Linked Data are conflated. Net effect, something so simple ends up with 
> the perception of being eternally mercurial thereby turning the entire 
> "deceptively simple" virtue of AWWW (as exemplified by Linked Data) on 
> its head.
> 
> We can talk about Linked Data concepts clearly if we simply stop being 
> insecure about RDF. Both have distinct virtues that are ultimately lost 
> in confusion when conflated.
> 
> Links:
> 
> 1. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2012Sep/0003.html 
> -- reference earlier to demonstrate the issues with RDF and Linked Data 
> conflation (note its origins ie., JSON-LD list) .
> 
> -- 
> 
> 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 Thursday, 11 October 2012 17:04:25 UTC

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