- From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2010 16:15:42 -0400
- To: nathan@webr3.org
- CC: public-lod@w3.org
Nathan wrote: > afaict the focus is on introducing the benefits of EAV (and by extension > rdf and linked data) as a data model that can be used by us all behind > the scenes (reaping rich rewards), rather than just mapping our data to > rdf / owl /linked data (and by implication EAV) at the publishing level. > > as more people consume and use linked data, rdf, owl, they come to > realise the many advantages, and consider making the move to storing all > data as rdf / linked data and working on it in the same way - I believe > the Data 3.0 manifesto can be used to introduce the benefits of EAV > behind the firewall (and help programmers get the model, data, > understanding right in the first place) then go on to expose this all to > the world as rdf / linked data. > > In many ways it's coming at linked data in the other direction, showing > the EAV model, then the different ways of exposing the eav model (odata, > gdata, rdf/linkedata) and people can work it out from there as to which > is best. > > IMHO 1000 developers groking EAV and adopting it will be exponentially > more benefit to the linked data / web 3 movement than 1000 developers > all reading a few docs and mapping some rectangular data through to > linked data without really understanding what's going on. > Well said! Basically, this is about "Linked Data" the prequel. You can't have Structured Data without a Data Model. We have a uniform (and innately universal) data model in EAV :-) Kingsley > Best, > > Nathan > > ps: John, that "Rectangular Data" thing is really catching on :-) > > pps: whilst talking about bridges, ask any bridge builder about the > strength of triangles then relate to the trinity exposed via EAV. > > > Jiří Procházka wrote: > >> So essentially, all this is a cover-up maneuver to sell RDF to the >> people masked as something else, more familiar? >> >> If so, I understand why you feel this is necessary, after all the goal >> is not to sell the customer what he asked for, but what he really wanted >> but didn't realize or could fully express (this time customer being tech >> folk). >> Anyway I rather use and try to market RDF as it is, maybe it's a bit too >> fast for some, but I guess I've left too little people in utter >> confusion yet to try so different ways :) >> >> But before proceeding with your plan to fix RDF + Linked Data marketing, >> I ask you to consider also what in marketing RDF was done right beside >> what wasn't. >> >> For example RDF has clear name (Data 3.0? not very good name IMHO), the >> core model is very simple and has been numerously very well explained. >> On the other hand your manifesto sounds a bit too complex, more like a >> spec than a manifesto. For the effect I think you are aiming you need >> something very simple and striking... >> Not to mention it is first time I am hearing about EAV model, we all are >> from different backgrounds so this terminology won't have much of an >> impact I fear, though it is still good to introduce yet distant >> communities.... ;) >> >> For me greatest value of RDF and Linked Data lies in semantics - the >> ontologies (RDFS/OWL), which, as far as I understand it, the EAV model >> doesn't touch at all which in my eyes makes it only a bit better than >> tabular data models ("rectangular" as someone nicely coined some time >> ago somewhere). >> >> Overall it seems to me like building a sand island in middle of a wide >> river to ease construction of bridges across it... I guess you have >> tried building a bridge without the island a few times and it collapsed >> every time, so I understand why you are building the island. But maybe I >> got better steel and mine bridges would last... maybe... >> On one hand I am glad we try these various ways and on the other I keep >> myself asking if the gain outweighs the price of fragmentation... >> >> Best, >> Jiri Prochazka >> >> On 04/17/2010 10:51 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote: >> >>> John Erickson wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Kingsley! >>>> >>>> Reading between the lines, I think I grok where you are trying to go >>>> with your "manifesto." For it to be an effective, stand-alone document >>>> I think a few pieces are needed: >>>> >>>> 1. What is your GOAL? It should be clearly stated, something like, "to >>>> promote best-practices for standards-compliant access to structured >>>> data object (or entity) descriptors by getting data architects to do X >>>> instead of Y," etc. >>>> >>>> >>> Okay, I'll see what I can do. >>> >>> This document is really a continuation of a document that's actually >>> missing from the Web, sadly. >>> >>> A long time ago (start of Web 2.0), there was a Data 2.0 manifesto by >>> Alex James (now at Microsoft), so in classic two-fer fashion I've opted >>> to kill two birds with a single stone: >>> >>> 1. Linked Data incomprehension (Technical and Political) >>> >>> 2. Data 2.0 manifesto upgrade and update. >>> >>> >>>> 2. What is your MOTIVATION? I think this is implicit in your current >>>> text --- your argument seems to be that TBL's "Four Principles" are >>>> not enough --- but you need to make your motivations explicit and >>>> JUSTIFY them. If TBL's principles are too nebulous, explain concisely >>>> why and what the implications are. Keep in mind that they seem to be >>>> "good enough" for many practitioners today. ;) >>>> >>>> >>> My motivation is simply this: Get RDF out of the way! >>> The "RDF incomprehension cloud" is only second to what's heading across >>> Northern Europe from Iceland, re. obscuring a myriad of routes to Linked >>> Data comprehension. >>> >>> How can we spend 12+ years on the basic issue of EAV + de-referencable >>> identifiers? Compounded by poor monikers such as: Information Resource >>> and Non-Information Resource. We have Data Objects (Entities, Data Items >>> etc.) and their associated Descriptor Documents (Representation Carriers >>> or Senses), its always been so! >>> >>> Note, RDF "the Data Model" doesn't exist in the minds of the broader >>> Web audience (I am not sending an inbound meme to the Semantic Web >>> Community, my meme is being beamed to a wider audience that's taking way >>> to long to grok the essence of the Linked Data matter). >>> >>> I (and many others) are utterly fed up with trying to accentuate the >>> fact that RDF is based on a Graph Data Model. The initial "RDF/XML is >>> RDF" conflation has dealt a fatal blow to RDF re., broad audience >>> communications. >>> >>> EAV has been with us forever, people already use applications that are >>> based on this model, across all major operating systems. Why not >>> triangulate from this position (top down) instead of bottom up (which >>> ultimately reeks of NIH rather than a Cool Tweak)? >>> >>> >>>> 3. Be SPECIFIC about what practitioners must do moving forward. I >>>> think you've made a good start on this, to the extent that you have >>>> lots of "SHOULDS." I would argue that more specificity of a different >>>> kind is needed; if data architects SHOULD be following more abstract >>>> EAV conceptualizations, what exactly should they do in practice? >>>> >>>> >>> Hmm.. will see what I can do. >>> >>> This is a seed document (I hope). Anyone (including yourself) should be >>> able to add perspective to it etc.. >>> >>>> Finally, on the deeper question of motivation, I suggest that while a >>>> historical argument can be made that RDF is likely a subset or special >>>> case of EAV, the community has developed convenient and familiar >>>> languages for expressing RDF (such as N3 and Turtle); practitioners >>>> are much less familiar with EAV. Does the community really lose >>>> anything by using RDF as its shorthand? >>>> >>>> >>> RDF is a variant of EAV courtesy of Generic HTTP scheme Identifiers for >>> Names. >>> >>> Nothing in what I am saying or seeking dislocates RDF from the big >>> picture here. It just isn't the item for starting conversations with >>> people outside the Semantic Web Community (still very small in the grand >>> scale of things). >>> >>> I am simply seeking to extend the picture (coherently) without >>> unnecessary RDF specificity. >>> >>> OData, GData, Core Data, are all EAV model based, in the very worst case >>> they make RDF based Linked Data easier to generate, thus a win-win. >>> Sadly, that isn't how these other EAV based approaches are perceived, >>> the gut instinct is to pick them apart as not conforming to the RDF >>> based Linked Data principles (btw -- when TimBL added RDF and SPARQL to >>> the meme, he basically put a crack in the pot IMHO). >>> >>> >>>> Perhaps you can suggest a pattern within current RDF practice that >>>> more strongly enforces EAV principles? >>>> >>>> >>> RDF is all fine re. EAV. >>> It about getting other communities (e.g. WEb 2.0) to adopt and exploit >>> EAV via use of de-referencable Identifiers (Names). >>> >>> What I am hoping is that we just tweak how we introduce Linked Data, >>> establish the fact that we have a common data model at the base, a model >>> that we already use (in our heads) and across almost every application >>> we've worked with to date. Then show how Linked Data is ultimately about >>> deconstructing application data silos so that we have a much richer >>> corpus of structured data, across a myriad of boundaries (application, >>> OS, network etc..), that amenable to "data meshing" rather than "data >>> mashing". >>> >>> IMHO. The Linked Data Value Proposition and Elevator Pitch is simply >>> this: Individual and/or Enterprise Agility via Data Silo Deconstruction. >>> >>> Kingsley >>> >>>> John >>>> >>>> On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 12:37 PM, Kingsley Idehen >>>> <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> Richard Cyganiak wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Kingsley, >>>>>> >>>>>> Regarding your blog post at >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.openlinksw.com/dataspace/kidehen@openlinksw.com/weblog/kidehen@openlinksw.com%27s%20BLOG%20%5B127%5D/1624 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Great job -- I like it a lot, it's not as fuzzy as Tim's four >>>>>> principles, >>>>>> not as mired in detail as most of the concrete literature around linked >>>>>> data, and on the right level of abstraction to explain why we need >>>>>> to do >>>>>> certain things in linked data in a certain way. It's also great for >>>>>> comparing the strengths and weaknesses of different data exchange >>>>>> stacks. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Thanks, happy its resonating. >>>>> >>>>> RDF has inadvertently caused mass distraction away from the fact that a >>>>> common Data Model is the key to meshing heterogeneous data sources. >>>>> People >>>>> just don't "buy" or "grok" the data model aspect of RDF, so why continue >>>>> fighting this battle, when all we want is mass comprehension, however >>>>> we get >>>>> there. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> A few comments: >>>>>> >>>>>> 1. I'd like to see mentioned that identifiers should have global scope. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Yes, will add that emphasis for sure. I guess "Network" might not >>>>> necessarily emphasize that strongly enough. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> 2. I'd prefer a list of the parts of a 3-tuple that reads: >>>>>> >>>>>> - an Identifier that names an Entity >>>>>> - an Identifier that names an Attribute >>>>>> - an Attribute Value, which may be an Identifier or a Literal >>>>>> (typed >>>>>> or untyped). >>>>>> >>>>>> This avoids using the new terms “Entity Identifier” and “Attribute >>>>>> Identifier”. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> No problem. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> 3. “Structured Descriptions SHOULD be borne by Descriptor Resources” >>>>>> -- I >>>>>> think this one is incomprehensible, because “to bear” is such an >>>>>> unusual >>>>>> verb and has no clear connotations in technical circles. I'd >>>>>> encourage a >>>>>> different phrasing. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Will think about that, getting the right phrase here is is >>>>> challenging, so I >>>>> am naturally open to suggestions etc.. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> 3b. Any chance of talking you into using “Descriptor Document” >>>>>> rather than >>>>>> “Descriptor Resource”? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> No problem, "Descriptor Document" it is :-) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> 4. One thing that's left unclear: Can a Descriptor Resource carry >>>>>> multiple >>>>>> Structured Entity Descriptions or just a single one? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Descriptor Documents are compound in that they can describe a single >>>>> Entity >>>>> or a Collection. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> 5. Putting each term in quotes when first introduced is a good idea and >>>>>> helps -- you did it for the first few terms but then stopped. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Writers exhaustion I guess, will fix. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> 6. I'm tempted to add somewhere, “Descriptor Resources are Entities >>>>>> themselves.” But this might be a purposeful omission on your part? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Yes, this is deliberate because I am trying to say: "Referent" is the >>>>> "Thing" you describe by giving it a "Name" so, anything can be a >>>>> "Referent" >>>>> including a "Document" (which has always been problematic in general RDF >>>>> realm work e.g. the failure to make links between a ".rdf" Descriptor >>>>> Document and the actual "Entity Descriptions" they contain etc. via >>>>> "primarytopic", "describedby", and other relations. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> 7. The last point talks about a “Structured Representation” of the >>>>>> Referent's Structured Description. The term hasn't been introduced. >>>>>> Shouldn't this just read “Descriptor Resource carrying the Referent's >>>>>> Structured Description”? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Yes, so basically this is: s/bear/carry/g :-) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> What's your preferred name for the entire thing? I'm tempted to call it >>>>>> “Kingsley's networked EAV model” or something like that. Do you >>>>>> insist on >>>>>> “Data 3.0”? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Well EAV is old, and one of my real inspirations for hamming its >>>>> relevance >>>>> to Linked Data is the fact that over the years I spoken with too many >>>>> people >>>>> that grok EAV but never connected it to the Semantic Web Project, or the >>>>> more recent Linked Data meme. >>>>> >>>>> Imagine talking to founders of companies like Ingres, Informix, MySQL >>>>> etc.., >>>>> and witnessing them not making the EAV model connection; especially >>>>> when you >>>>> can't actually write a DBMS engine without comprehension of EAV, >>>>> Identifiers, and Data representation (simple or complex data >>>>> structure). How >>>>> ironic! >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> Richard >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Thanks for the great feedback, I think we're getting closer to the >>>>> global >>>>> epiphany we all seek !! >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> >>>>> Kingsley Idehen President & CEO OpenLink Software Web: >>>>> http://www.openlinksw.com >>>>> Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen >>>>> Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> > > > > -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen President & CEO OpenLink Software Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
Received on Sunday, 18 April 2010 20:16:15 UTC