W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ldp-wg@w3.org > June 2013

Re: An IRC discussion with Alexandre Bertails re SSUE-19:

From: Alexandre Bertails <bertails@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2013 15:07:18 -0400
Message-ID: <51B0DDE6.6070805@w3.org>
To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
CC: "public-ldp-wg@w3.org" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
On 06/06/2013 02:28 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> On 6/6/13 2:14 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>> On 6/6/13 1:56 PM, Alexandre Bertails wrote:
>>> I have to say that I don't understand that part. How do you fix the
>>> interpretation of ldp:Container to be its definition in the document
>>> that you dereference at http://www.w3.org/ns/ldp? Isn't it introducing
>>> something that is not defined in RDF? I thought that RDF was not
>>> relying on HTTP on purpose.
>> RDF is scoped to IRIs (which may or may not be HTTP scheme URIs)
>> RDF based Linked Data is scoped to HTTP URIs.
>> Hopefully, QED.
> A little clearer:
> 1.  RDF is scoped to IRIs (which may or may not be HTTP scheme URIs) --
> its sole function (re. Model Theory aspect) is structured data
> representation where the semantics of Relations are explicit rather than
> implicit
> 2. Linked Data -- its prime goal is using HTTP URIs to denote Relations
> that resolve to the meaning/sense of said Relations (so you end up with
> a graph comprised of Relations that describes the HTTP URI's referent)
> 3. RDF based Linked Data -- combing both such that HTTP URIs resolve to
> descriptions of URI Referents which is a wordy way of saying the HTTP
> URIs resolve to an entity relationship graph endowed with *explicit*
> entity relationship semantics that are human- and machine-comprehensible.
> Thus:
> 1.
> http://linkeddata.uriburner.com/about/html/http/www.w3.org/ns/ldp%01Container
> -- an HTML document that describes ldp:Container via an entity
> relationship graph based description
> 2. see footer section of the page above for alternative representations
> of the same entity relationship graph based description.
> Hopefully, QED :-)

I'm sorry Kingsley. I always feel very stupid when I read your
answers. I mean, I try really hard to understand what you're saying,
and it looks all regular English to me (as you know, I'm not a native
English speaker). But you refer to concepts that I don't know or have
never seen together. I always fail to connect your answers with the
questions being asked. And most of the time it looks to me that they
address a broader scope than what this group is trying to achieve.

So please don't take it bad if I don't answer any of your emails and
excuse me again.

Received on Thursday, 6 June 2013 19:07:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:11:51 UTC