- From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 14:57:51 -0500
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- CC: "public-lod@w3.org" <public-lod@w3.org>
Pat Hayes wrote: > > On Feb 17, 2010, at 11:36 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote: > >> Pat Hayes wrote: >>> >>> On Feb 17, 2010, at 6:37 AM, Dan Brickley wrote: >>> >>>> ... . RDF was originally >>>> standardised as a metadata system, a mechanism for finding stuff ... >>>> whether that stuff was photos, videos, HTML pages, excel spreadsheets, >>>> SQL databases, 3d models. ... >>> >>> Really? That was not the impression I got when I first got involved >>> with it. In fact, I asked explicitly for clarification, at the first >>> F2F in Sebastopol: is RDF intended to be metadata for Web 'objects', >>> or is it supposed to be a notation for describing **things in >>> general**? And the resounding chorus from the WG was the latter, >>> most definitely not the former. (Which is also what Guha told me >>> right after the very first RDF speclet was first released.) >> Yes, and I think you've inadvertently unveiled a subtle distinctin >> between Linked Data and the earlier Semantic Web Project goals. >> >> At the heart of HTTP based Linked Data lies the use of the generic >> HTTP URIs duality ( Identity/Access ) to actually deliver metadata >> for Data Objects on an HTTP network. > > Fine, I understand. But then you can't "link" to a non-Web object. > But I was chiefly commenting on DanB's historical recollections. > >>> And that is why I designed the semantics based on a logical model >>> theory rather than a computational annotation system. If RDF was >>> supposed to be primarily a mechanism for finding stuff, then we >>> designed it wrong. >> I think you kinda attested to some of that in your blogic >> presentation :-) > > Ah no, what I was talking about there were just plain bugs and bad > design decisions. But this is a more fundamental split, between RDF as > a description format and RDF as a purely metadata tool intended to aid > Web searching. But, don't structured resource descriptions aid resource discovery, courtesy of relations? > Maybe these are compatible, but AFAIK the original, intended, design > goal for RDF was the former. Methinks they are compatible, even if we arrived here via unintended effects, of the positive kind :-) Kingsley > > Pat > >> >> Kingsley >>> >>> Pat >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>> IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 >>> 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office >>> Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax >>> FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile >>> phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> >> Regards, >> >> Kingsley Idehen President & CEO OpenLink Software Web: >> http://www.openlinksw.com >> Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen >> Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen >> >> >> >> >> > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 > 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office > Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax > FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile > phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes > > > > > > -- 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 Wednesday, 17 February 2010 19:58:19 UTC