Re: Fwd: The need for RDF in Linked Data

On 6/18/13 9:53 AM, David Booth wrote:
> [Oops! I just noticed this stuck in my out box]
>
> On 06/17/2013 08:07 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>> On 6/17/13 1:35 AM, David Booth wrote:
>>>
>>> If the term Linked Data is "hijacked" by a broader population
>>> to mean *any* sort of data that is linked -- not necessarily
>>> RDF -- then this will be a major loss to the Semantic Web
>>> community, because it is very hard to come up with simple ways
>>> to communicate the essence of the Semantic Web.  The Linked
>>> Data meme has been extremely helpful.  If the RDF component
>>> is lost, we will have lost the best meme we have ever had for
>>> explaining the Semantic Web.`
>> David,
>>
>> It's possible to debate a matter without unnecessary use of inflammatory
>> language. I would happily debate you any day about this subject matter,
>> but I struggle with your choice of words.
>
> I sincerely apologize if it sounded inflammatory, as it was not 
> intended that way.  it was intended to be accurately descriptive of 
> how it feels.
>
>>
>> Have you considered that "hijacked" is utterly unnecessary in this
>> debate? Irrespective of who might be right or wrong, nobody is trying to
>> hijack anything.
>
> I chose that word because it accurately describes how it feels to have 
> such an important meme taken away by having its meaning altered in 
> such a critical way.
>
>> Put differently, can you make a convincing case against
>> that fact that by inserting RDF -- in immutable form -- into the Linked
>> Data conversation (retrospectively) it could also be perceived by some
>> as hijacking?
>
> Yes.  That is why I put the word in quotes: to acknowledge that that 
> is one perspective, and others with a different perspective may look 
> at it differently.  apparently I should have pushed in a more explicit 
> disclaimer such as: ". . . at least, that is how it *feels*".
>
>>
>> If you recall, your fundamental thesis is predicated on the notion that
>> it took TimBL 3 years (between 2006 and 2009) to realize that he was
>> inarticulate about RDF in all his prior Linked Data related memes.
>
> No, it is not.  Again, my thesis is: (a) "Linked Data" is a term of 
> art, in the Semantic Web community, that implies the use of RDF; and 
> (b) the loss of that term as a term of art (by altering its meaning in 
> a critical way) would be harmful to the goals of the Semantic Web.
>
> David
>
>
>
David,

First off, this is an important debate that's also getting healthier. 
It's one this community should really have addressed years ago i.e., the 
moment TimBL altered his original meme.

Anyway, as they say, a picture speaks a thousand words, so here is a 
URI/URL that denotes a Web accessible graphics resource [1] illustrating 
how I see the intersection of:

1. Identifiers  -- e.g., URIs
2. Structured Data Representation -- entity relationship statements 
(representable as graphs)
3. Logic (specifically Predicate Logic) -- entity relationship semantics.

My fundamental positions remain as follows:

1. Linked Data isn't *uniquely constructable* using RDF -- i.e., 
developers or end-users don't need to know anything about RDF en route 
to creating and publishing Web accessible documents comprised of Linked 
Data content (note: these docs will be 100% compliant with the 
principles outlined in TimBL's original meme).

2. Linked Data isn't a W3C "term of art"  -- I am unaware of any 
operating system or programming language that doesn't (ultimately) 
exploit Linked Data i.e,  name->address indirection

3. RDF is all about Blogic (Web-scale Predicate Logic) -- of course, 
Linked Data makes this scale to the World Wide Web, but (even as I 
write) there is no mandatory IRI de-refrence requirement in any W3C RDF 
spec (published or drafted).

If the positions outlined above are in fact true, how can it be 
beneficial to conflate Linked Data and RDF when the ultimate outcome is 
ambiguity laden confusion, compounded by  superficial political 
deadlock? How do any of the aforementioned outcomes help the broader 
community (i.e., outside the W3C) appreciate, and then participate in a 
crowd-sourced approach to increasing the semantic fidelity of the 
relations around which the World Wide Web is woven, on a daily basis?

I don't believe in draconian mandates, even when they are disguised as 
specs. The World Wide Web is the most *democratic* technology of our 
time. HTML isn't in broad use by mandate. It's in broad use because the 
folks at Mozilla/Netscape figured out a simple pattern (aka. "view 
source" ) that enabled everyday users rapidly learn how to publish 
web-like documents tp the World Wide Web. The fact that said documents 
where HTML based had little to do with the World Wide Web bootstrap.

IMO: It isn't the job of the W3C to prescribe Web standards. It is the 
job of the W3C to standardize what's in broad use on the World Wide Web 
i.e., formally standardize de facto standards (which also have the 
distinct benefit of practical industrial use and contributions from 
industrial-domain experts).

Links:

1. http://twitpic.com/cxw5ex/full -- Identifiers, Structured Data 
Representation, and Logic (specifically Predicate Logic)

2. http://bit.ly/XAyU3F -- view source pattern and the critical role it 
played re., World Wide Web bootstrap (ironically penned by a Semantic 
Web critic).

-- 

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