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

On 6/11/13 11:26 PM, Mike Bergman wrote:
>
> 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. 

Clearly, you don't seem to be aware of the genesis of this matter. Here 
are the roots of this particular thread:

1. 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2013Apr/0085.html -- 
JSON-LD mailing list thread about JSON-LD and RDF (this is where David 
Booth and I started to disagree)

2. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lod/2013Jun/0083.html -- 
RDF's challenges (the motivations of the post are clearly defined in the 
post)

BTW -- being able to express and defends one's point of view isn't a 
quest to be a spokesman. What's that all about?

> 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".

Again, please dig a little deeper, try to understand how these threads 
emerge. The (I hope) you will come to understand my positions a little 
better. I can't control how you perceive me, but I can point you to facts.

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

I want to be clear.

I want any ambiguity that lingers in my own mind to be clarified through 
open discussion and civil debate.


>
> 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.

Note, you've arrived at a conclusion (yet again) without processing my 
response. All you have to do is digest my response and then establish 
context that is at least publicly defensible.
>
> 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.

Is civility in debate such a mercurial concept to you? Can you not make 
a point in a conversation (or heated debate) without being personal?

>
> 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.

Thanks!

Kingsley
>
> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>


-- 

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