Re: http://ld2sd.deri.org/lod-ng-tutorial/

Martin,

> It was not my intend to insult anybody.

Thank you.

> And Michael, please be frank - there is a tendency in the LOD community
> which goes along the lines of "OWL and DL-minded SW research has proven
> obsolete anyway, so we LOD guys and girls just pick and use the bits and
> pieces we like and don't care about the rest".

Your words, not mine ;)

> What made the Web so powerful is that its Architecture is extremely
> well-thought underneath the first cover of simplicity. Exactly the
> opposite of "I will use this pragmatic pattern until it breaks" but
> instead "architectural beauty for eternity".

"While simplicity makes it possible to deploy an initial implementation of a
distributed system, extensibility allows us to avoid getting stuck forever
with the limitations of what was deployed."

>From the seminal paper 'Principled Design of the Modern Web Architecture' by
Roy T. Fielding and Richard N. Taylor [1]. Agree.

Cheers,
      Michael

[1] http://www.ics.uci.edu/~fielding/pubs/webarch_icse2000.pdf

-- 
Dr. Michael Hausenblas
LiDRC - Linked Data Research Centre
DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute
NUIG - National University of Ireland, Galway
Ireland, Europe
Tel. +353 91 495730
http://linkeddata.deri.ie/
http://sw-app.org/about.html



> From: "Martin Hepp (UniBW)" <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
> Organization: http://www.heppnetz.de
> Reply-To: <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
> Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 11:01:19 +0200
> To: Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>
> Cc: <mark.birbeck@webbackplane.com>, David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, Linked
> Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: http://ld2sd.deri.org/lod-ng-tutorial/
> 
> It was not my intend to insult anybody. But I still don't get why some
> of you want to recommend a pattern that breaks with a current W3C
> recommendation just on the basis that there are many documents out there
> that break with it. The Swoogle post from 2007 simply says that there
> are many documents out there that are not using it properly. But there
> are also many RDF resources out there that break with LOD principles and
> LOD recommendations and nobody would dare to question the principles
> solely on the basis of bad implementations.
> 
> And Michael, please be frank - there is a tendency in the LOD community
> which goes along the lines of "OWL and DL-minded SW research has proven
> obsolete anyway, so we LOD guys and girls just pick and use the bits and
> pieces we like and don't care about the rest".
> 
> As Kingsley said - deceptively simple solutions are cheap in the
> beginning but can be pretty costly in the long run.
> 
> What made the Web so powerful is that its Architecture is extremely
> well-thought underneath the first cover of simplicity. Exactly the
> opposite of "I will use this pragmatic pattern until it breaks" but
> instead "architectural beauty for eternity".
> 
> Just look at the http specs. The fact that you can do a nice 303 is
> because someone in the distant past very cleverly designed a protocol
> goes well beyond the pragmatic "I have a URL (sic!) and want to fetch
> the Web page in HTML (sic!)".
> 
> So when being proud of being the "pragmatic guys" keep in mind that
> nothing is as powerful in practice as something that is theoretically
> consistent.
> 
> Best
> Martin
> 
> 
> Michael Hausenblas wrote:
>> Martin,
>> 
>>   
>>> (moving this to LOD public as suggested)
>>>     
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>>   
>>> General note: I am quite unhappy with a general movement in parts of the
>>> LOD community to clash with the OWL world even when that is absolutely
>>> unnecessary. It is just a bad engineering practice to break with
>>> existing standards unless you can justify the side-effects. And this
>>> stubborn "i don't care what the OWL specs says" pattern is silly, in
>>> particular if the real motivation of many proponents of this approach is
>>> that they don't want or cannot read the OWL specs.
>>>     
>> 
>> I don't think it is particular helpful to insult people, to utter
>> imputations and judge a book by its cover. If we can agree to stop using
>> such terminology I'm more than happy to continue the discussion.
>> 
>>   
>>> On the other hand - what is your pain with  using RDFa in a way so that
>>> the extracted RDF model is equivalent to the model from an RDF/XML or N3
>>> serialization? Why this absolutely arbitrary "we LOD guys don't like
>>> owl:import ( we don't like OWL anyway, you know?), so we simply omit it"
>>> behavior?
>>> 
>>> It is just silly to break with established standards just for saving 1 -
>>> 2 triples.
>>>     
>> 
>> Ok, so, again, for the chaps who didn't get the entire story. Martin
>> champions the use of owl:import (and wants to see it written down as a good
>> practice?) in linked data.
>> 
>> My take on this is as follows: when one takes the linked data principles and
>> applies them in practice (esp. referring to #2, here) there are naturally a
>> dozens implementation choices as the principles simply leave room for
>> interpretation. 
>> 
>> The people here know me from the RDFa TF, from the AWWSW TF and last but not
>> least from the LOD community as a simple-minded, pragmatic guy, I hope ;)
>> 
>> So, my hunch would be: the market will make the final decision, not a Martin
>> Hepp and also not a Michael Hausenblas. If people think this is a clever
>> idea, they will use it when publishing linked data. AFAIK, to date the usage
>> of owl:import in linked data is close to non-existing (even in pre-LOD times
>> it seemed to be not very common [1]).
>> 
>> Concluding, I'd propose - respecting the nature of good *practice* - once we
>> notice a serious usage of owl:import in LOD data, we may want to rehash this
>> topic.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>>       Michael
>> 
>> [1] http://ebiquity.umbc.edu/blogger/2007/06/15/how-owlimport-is-used/
>> 
>>   
> 
> -- 
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> martin hepp
> e-business & web science research group
> universitaet der bundeswehr muenchen
> 
> e-mail:  mhepp@computer.org
> phone:   +49-(0)89-6004-4217
> fax:     +49-(0)89-6004-4620
> www:     http://www.unibw.de/ebusiness/ (group)
>          http://www.heppnetz.de/ (personal)
> skype:   mfhepp 
> twitter: mfhepp
> 
> Check out the GoodRelations vocabulary for E-Commerce on the Web of Data!
> ========================================================================
> 
> Webcast:
> http://www.heppnetz.de/projects/goodrelations/webcast/
> 
> Talk at the Semantic Technology Conference 2009:
> "Semantic Web-based E-Commerce: The GoodRelations Ontology"
> http://tinyurl.com/semtech-hepp
> 
> Tool for registering your business:
> http://www.ebusiness-unibw.org/tools/goodrelations-annotator/
> 
> Overview article on Semantic Universe:
> http://tinyurl.com/goodrelations-universe
> 
> Project page and resources for developers:
> http://purl.org/goodrelations/
> 
> Tutorial materials:
> Tutorial at ESWC 2009: The Web of Data for E-Commerce in One Day: A Hands-on
> Introduction to the GoodRelations Ontology, RDFa, and Yahoo! SearchMonkey
> 
> http://www.ebusiness-unibw.org/wiki/GoodRelations_Tutorial_ESWC2009
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 23 June 2009 09:14:59 UTC