Re: RDF's challenge

You said TOOLs. That’s correct. I’d like a way to natively work with RDF graphs on Web browsers as I can do it with rdflib in Python or with Virtuoso and SPARQL on the server side.


I do not wanna care about the serialization as I have the abstract model that gives me everything I need to work with. If a framework needs to serialize RDF into what ever form the client needs, so be it. What does it have to do with me?


However, I never found such solution for Web clients. Usually, I have to convert my triples to some ’native’ Web formats like JSON or XML that the other side has to parse by some non-abstract way in order to create its fancy presentation. That increases the complexity tremendously.


Sven



Von: Kingsley Idehen
Gesendet: ‎Dienstag‎, ‎11‎. ‎Juni‎ ‎2013 ‎19‎:‎36
An: public-lod@w3.org

On 6/11/13 12:58 PM, Hugh Glaser wrote:
> Nicely put, David.
> I have heard people going the other way and disconnecting them, however.
> That is, suggesting that Linked Data does not need to be RDF, which I do find confuses people (and me!)

It isn't all or nothing.

It just means you don't always have to start with RDF when trying to 
explain or demonstrate the virtues of Linked Data.

RDF's real contribution lies in enabling machines to understand the 
relationship semantics that are used to construct the web-like 
structured data.

You can construct 5-Star Linked Data endowed with coarse-grained (rather 
than fine-grained) entity relationship semantics without any knowledge 
of RDF whatsoever. All you need is TimBLs original meme (which outlines 
how to use HTTP URIs to enhance structured data representation) or 
fundamental knowledge of how to use pointers to enhance structured data 
representation. BTW --  many Web developers actually have this kind of 
knowledge without every digesting an RDF related spec.

Again: I make these comments to encourage flexibility in our approaches 
to Linked Data evangelism etc... Linked Data is a powerful conduit to 
RDF and beyond. It doesn't have to be confined to RDF -- since they are 
both useful in their own rights.

There's also lots of RDF out there where none of the IRIs resolve. They 
still deliver value, even if said value doesn't scale to the World Wide 
Web.

Kingsley
>
> On 11 Jun 2013, at 16:56, David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
>   wrote:
>
>> On 06/11/2013 10:59 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>>> [ . . . ]  many RDF advocates
>>> want to conflate Linked Data and RDF. This is technically wrong, and
>>> marketing wise -- an utter disaster.
>> I have not heard RDF advocates conflating Linked Data and RDF, but maybe you talk to different RDF advocates than me.
>>
>> AFAICT, the vast majority of RDF advocates know that Linked Data is RDF in which URIs are deferenceable to more RDF, but RDF is not necessarily Linked Data, because RDF itself does not require URIs to be dereferenceable.
>>
>> David
>>
>
>
>


-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen 
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com

Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen

Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about

LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen