Re: Proof: Linked Data does not require RDF

On 6/19/13 3:41 PM, David Booth wrote:
> On 06/19/2013 02:29 AM, エリクソン トーレ wrote:
>> My point was that even if the data producer doesn't know anything about
>> RDF, when applying the meme he will produce something that follows
>> the RDF abstract syntax. That is the strength of RDF and why I think
>> it is an intrinsic part of Linked Data.
>
> +1
>
> The data does not have to *look* like RDF to *be* (interpretable as) RDF.

I am not disputing that.

> But to support the goal of the Semantic Web, it is important 
> *specifically* that the data be interpretable as RDF.

I am not disputing that.  The Semantic Web is about RDF based Blogic.

My simple point (which I will defend vigorously) is this:

You don't need to know anything about RDF to create and publish Linked 
Data in line with TimBL's original Linked Data meme.

"interpretable as RDF" is a Blogic requirement. That isn't a Linked Data 
requirement.

Interpretation is about understanding. A Linked Data graph is comprised 
of Triples that represent how a entities are related i.e., the Triple is 
a representation of a Relationship between two entities, facilitated the 
relationship predicate. The semantics of the relationship may be 
*explicit* or *implicit*. These semantics may or may not be machine or 
human comprehensible.

RDF makes the entity relationship semantics expressed in a triple 
machine-comprehensible (at the very least). An RDF processor can 
interpret RDF statements. A Linked Data processor on the other hand, 
simply follows the links unveiled by content published (via public or 
private web-like documents) using the principles outlined in TimBL's 
original meme.

You are trying to shy away from "inference" and "reasoning" (key RDF 
features) while making an "all or nothing" grab for the much more 
generic concept of Linked Data.

"term or art" , "interpretable" , "ambiguity" etc.. aren't the key 
points around which to mount a defense or justification for trying to 
infer that RDF is the only option for Linked Data. It just doesn't 
compute and It isn't defensible.

Linked Data, RDF, and the Semantic Web are three distinct things. If 
they weren't three distinct things. They do not denote the same concept. 
They denote three puzzle pieces that add utility to the web-like 
structured data representation that can scale to the World Wide Web, 
subject to choices you make about identifiers used to denote entities in 
relationships represented by 3-tuple (or triples) based propositional 
statements (or claims).

A URI is the basic unit of Data-de-silo-fication. That came along and 
enabled a World Wide Web long before the letters "RDF" became associated 
with the concept of  web-like structured data endowed with machine- and 
human-comprehensible entity relationship semantics.

>
> As I pointed out before:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lod/2013Jun/0208.html
> [[
> > Why does RDF need to be the standard universal information
> > model?  not because it is perfect, but because *some*
> > standard universal information model is needed, and that is
> > the one that was chosen, just as URIs were chosen to be the
> > standard universal identification convention.  [ . . . ]
> >
> > why couldn't other sufficiently powerful information models
> > achieve the same Semantic Web goal just as well, and be used
> > in addition to RDF?  Because that would fragment the web.
> > instead of one web we would have many webs, each one its
> > own walled garden, and that is not [the] Semantic Web goal.
> > without a shared information model, client applications
> > would not be able to meaningfully combine the data from
> > those walled gardens.
> ]]
>
> David
>
>
>

See my comments above :-)

Links:

1. http://bit.ly/16EVFVG -- Illustrating why you can have Linked Data 
that complies with TimBL's original Linked Data meme without any 
knowledge of RDF
2. http://slidesha.re/18CtxGK-- Blogic (what RDF adds to Linked Data 
i.e., semantically enhanced web-like data that can scale to the World 
Wide Web)
3. http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/#section-design-goals -- RDF design 
goals circa. 2004 specs
4. http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/ -- RDF 1.1
5. http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/#section-design-goals -- What is an 
RDF predicate? Also note the Graph definition (a set of Triples).


-- 

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