- From: Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com>
- Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2009 20:30:47 -0500
- To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Cc: Sergio Fernández <sergio.fernandez@fundacionctic.org>, Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>, Semantic Web community <semantic-web@w3.org>
Let me second Libby's recent request to post only to one W3C list at a
time ("per the [W3C] guidelines")? This seems to be a particular
problem with cross-posts between semantic-web and public-lod.
http://www.w3.org/Mail/
thanks,
gregory williams
On Feb 1, 2009, at 6:02 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> Sergio,
>
> Nothing wrong with IFPs, at the end of the day they are going to be
> the key to bootstrapping the "Linked Data Web".
>
> If you look across Twitter , Identi.ca, and all the other Web 2.0
> data spaces, you will notice that IFPs reign at User App. Level.
> Even better, if we are trying to evolve the Web into a DBMS we have
> to be consistent with how DBMS engines actually work: all DBMS
> engines have IFPs (Primary Keys) and URIs (RowIDs). What makes the
> Web different is the fact that the RowIDs (URIs) aren't locked at
> the application, operating system, or network level :-)
>
> VoiD is bringing important matters to the fore (e.g. describing data
> containers and their relationships) that ultimately enable
> juxtaposition of traditional DBMS and "Web DBMS" as the basis for
> really understanding what the "Linked Data Web" is really about.
Received on Monday, 2 February 2009 01:31:30 UTC