Re: RDF's challenge

On 6/11/13 3:27 PM, Sven R.Kunze wrote:
> 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.

We actually built such a thing years ago, and basically had to leave it 
on the back-burner until a time when the need would be much clearer. The 
toolkit we built is called OAT [1][2] and it did provide that kind of 
abstraction. We even have a service [3][4] that just lets you work with 
Linked Data URIs via URIs that abstract your interactions with different 
data sources via 75+ data access drivers/cartridges.


2. -- old archive (we can 
release this to github on a moments notice with the latest sources)

> Sven
> *Von:* Kingsley Idehen
> *Gesendet:* ‎Dienstag‎, ‎11‎. ‎Juni‎ ‎2013 ‎19‎:‎36
> *An:*
> 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 <>
> >   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:
> Personal Weblog:
> Twitter/ handle: @kidehen
> Google+ Profile:
> LinkedIn Profile:



Kingsley Idehen 
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web:
Personal Weblog:
Twitter/ handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile:
LinkedIn Profile:

Received on Tuesday, 11 June 2013 19:58:17 UTC