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: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 15:50:28 -0400
Message-ID: <50772304.8060309@openlinksw.com>
To: Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com>
CC: public-ldp-wg@w3.org
On 10/11/12 1:02 PM, Arnaud Le Hors wrote:
> 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. :-)

It's nuance laced.

You denote Web documents (e.g. Web Pages or other Web artifacts) using a 
URI/URL. Basically, a URL which is a subClassOf URI. You denote 
everything else with a URI.

Linked Data uses indirection (via de-referencable URI denotation 
requirement) to associate a URI (the Data Source Name) with a URL 
(actual Data Source/Address/Location). Net effect, a Name resolves to 
content perceptible via the Web medium i.e., via a Web artifact such as 
a Web page. This content is the mechanism that delivers the *sense* of 
the referent of the URI.

>
> So, I kindly request that we all refrain from flooding the mailing 
> list with repeats.

Unfortunately, this isn't what's happening. There is a genuine debate 
about a critical nuance that has the predictable behavior or always 
rendering this subject matter mercurial. Mercurial subject matter never 
gains traction.
> 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.
If everyone that feels the way you describe spends a little time on the 
abundance of material out there many issues will actually get solved.

If we didn't have a problem why do the same old arguments keep on 
arising in different guises? Even when some of us have vowed to never 
comment on these matters ever again i.e., let folks find out the hard 
way at the expense of time they really don't have etc..

The core issue here is that Henry has outlined how you place a chunk of 
data at an address on an HTTP network. That simple task has lead us to a 
predictable endpoint with broken RDF specs pitched as adjudicator.


Links:

1. http://bit.ly/TCzfQT -- nice Google Talk presentation that explains 
why Names (URIs) trump Addresses (URLs) when dealing with Data.


Kingsley
>
> 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 <http://www.openlinksw.com/>
> > Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen 
> <http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/%7Ekidehen>
> > Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
> > Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
> > LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >


-- 

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 19:50:57 UTC

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