W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > July 2009

Re: Dons flame resistant (3 hours) interface about Linked Data URIs

From: Richard Light <richard@light.demon.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 10:56:56 +0100
Message-ID: <wttUrWKoBxVKFwPS@light.demon.co.uk>
To: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
Cc: semantic-web at W3C <semantic-web@w3c.org>, public-lod@w3.org
In message <7544285B-E1B1-48A4-96E0-BDED62175EA8@garlik.com>, Steve 
Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com> writes
>On 10 Jul 2009, at 01:22, Hugh Glaser wrote:
>> If I can't simply publish some RDF about something like my dog, by
>> publishing a file of triples that say what I want at my standard web 
>> we have broken the system.
>I couldn't agree more.
><rant subject="off-topic syntax rant of the decade">
>Personally I think that RDF/XML doesn't help, it's too hard to write 
>by hand. None of the other syntaxes for RDF triples really have the 
>stamp of legitimacy. I think that's something that could really help 
>adoption, the the same way that strict XHTML, in the early 1990's 
>wouldn't have been so popular with people (like me) who just wanted to 
>bash out some text in vi.

Well, in my view, when we get to "bashing out" triples it isn't the 
holding syntax which will be the main challenge, it's the Linked Data 
URLs. Obviously, in a Linked Data resource about your dog, you can 
invent the URL for the subject of your triples, but if your Data is to 
be Linked in any meaningful way, you also need URLs for their predicates 
and objects.

This implies that, without a sort of Semantic FrontPage (TM) with 
powerful and user-friendly lookup facilities, no-one is going to bash 
out usable Linked Data.  Certainly not with vi.  And if you have such 
authoring software, the easiest part of its job will be rendering your 
statements into as many syntaxes as you want.

Richard Light
Received on Friday, 10 July 2009 09:57:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:29:44 UTC