Re: Linked Stuff [was Re: RDF's challenge]

On 6/11/2013 9:46 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> On 6/11/13 9:55 PM, Mike Bergman wrote:
>> +1
> Mike,
>
> I am utterly confused about your +1.
>
> Which of the following are you in support of?
>
> 1. That RDF is Linked Data?
>
> 2. That Linked Data is RDF?

Yes.

What is boring and unnecessary about all of this is your attempt to be 
the spokesperson for "linked data" and then insisting upon revisionist 
interpretations. Even apart from that the fact is, linked data is only 
one animal in the zoo, and each animal has its niche.

Recent surveys by Karger and many others show the miserable percent 
penetration of RDF as a native data model, let alone its linked data 
variant (open or not; another stupid discussion). Why is that? (Not an 
invitation to more discussion on this thread.)

I agree with your frequent exhortations that entity-relationship tuples 
can be expressed with many formats and serializations; that is well and 
good, I have been an advocate of structure in many forms for some time 
[1], but that observation does not lead to a re-definition of "linked data".

The question for you, Kingsley, is this: Do you want to be "right"? or, 
Do you want to persuade?

You are not "right" from the standpoint of those involved in the 
beginning, and you are not persuading by insisting upon (loudly) a 
revisionist interpretation. So, given those outcomes, the best path is 
silence.

I do not personally think you are "lying" or "fraudulent" or some of 
David's other claims, but you are a pain in the ass, for sure, and I'm 
pretty convinced that threads like this do not help my own 
self-interests in representing this community to my client community. 
Can we not even agree upon basic terminology? Semantics, ha! they say.

My counsel, which I'm sure you will ignore, is to just keep your mouth 
in your pocket for a while. I only responded because our company uses 
your products, and OpenLink does great stuff. But, in my opinion, this 
line of argumentation is not helping me being an advocate.

Truly, this will be my *last* comment on this thread, which should just 
die away. There really are better battles to fight.

Mike

[1] http://www.mkbergman.com/533/structure-the-world/

>
> What do you think my point actually is?
>
> If you are wondering why I am utterly confused about your +1, here is a
> quote from one of your blog posts about the advantages of RDF circa., 2009:
>
> "Strong compatibility with “linked data” based on Web access (HTTP) and
> IRI identifiers" [1].
>
> Again, contrary to the picture that I will not let David Booth paint, my
> simple is that loosely coupling Linked Data and RDF does harm to
> neither. On the contrary, conflating both is eternally unproductive, and
> destructive to both.
>
> Is the pursuit of messaging dexterity and tolerance alternative world
> views now a novel concept?
>
>
> Links:
>
> 1.
> http://www.mkbergman.com/483/advantages-and-myths-of-rdf/#sthash.KBrIb1St.dpuf
> -- Advantages and Myths of RDF.
> 2. http://www.mkbergman.com/962/structured-web-gets-massive-boost/ -- I
> don't see you conflating RDF and Linked Data in this post
>
> Kingsley
>>
>> Mike
>>
>> PS Pls end this thread; it is a waste of electrons.
>>
>> On 6/11/2013 8:33 PM, David Booth wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 06/11/2013 06:24 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>>>> On 6/11/13 6:18 PM, Luca Matteis wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 12:02 AM, Kingsley Idehen
>>>>> <kidehen@openlinksw.com <mailto:kidehen@openlinksw.com>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>     Really? You are referring to a revision of the original meme [1].
>>>>>     And when you digest that meme, please don't come back inferring
>>>>>     that TimBL must have been thinking about RDF when he produced
>>>>>     outlined the four points in his original GOLDEN meme.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Who cares about the revisions from way back in 2006? We care about
>>>>> what the document says *today*. And it mentions RDF. So do the top 3
>>>>> results of the Google result for "linked data" [1][2][3].
>>>
>>> Indeed.  As I pointed out to Kingsley a few weeks ago:
>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2013Apr/0086.html
>>>
>>> [[
>>>  > - Of the top 10 hits from in a google search for "Linked
>>>  > Data", **every one of them stated or implied that Linked
>>>  > Data is based on RDF.**
>>>  >
>>>  > - Of the top 10 sites listed in a google search for '"Linked
>>>  > Data" is', **every one of them stated or implied that Linked
>>>  > Data is based on RDF.**
>>>  >
>>>  > - Of the top 10 sites listed in a google search for '"Linked
>>>  > Data" definition', **every one of them stated or implied
>>>  > that Linked Data is based on RDF.**
>>>  >
>>>  > How much evidence do you need?  Shall we check the top
>>>  > 100 hits?  Or the top 1000 hits?  Shall we try other search
>>>  > engines?   If you search hard enough you might find a tiny
>>>  > fraction that supports your claim.  But the vast majority
>>>  > of the evidence does not.
>>>  >
>>>  > The vast majority of the evidence indicates that in
>>>  > established usage, the term "Linked Data" implies the use
>>>  > of RDF.  If you wish to propose a new definition that is
>>>  > contrary to this established usage, you are obviously free
>>>  > to do so.  But please do *not* make the patently false claim
>>>  > that your proposed new definition reflects accepted usage.
>>>  > It very clearly does NOT.
>>> ]]
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Do we both agree
>>>>> that RDF is a fundamental requirement for data to be called "Linked
>>>>> Data"?
>>>>
>>>> No I don't, and I never will!
>>>
>>> Apparently no amount of evidence is going to change your mind.
>>>
>>> Please do not be surprised if people are (understandably) annoyed at
>>> your insistence on using the term "Linked Data" in a way that others
>>> find intentionally misleading.
>>>
>>> David
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Received on Wednesday, 12 June 2013 03:27:26 UTC