W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > June 2013

Re: Proof: Linked Data does not require RDF

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 07:15:23 -0400
Message-ID: <51C2E44B.4080606@openlinksw.com>
To: public-lod@w3.org
On 6/19/13 10:47 PM, Young,Jeff (OR) wrote:
> My impression is that Kingsley is arguing that triples is triples. Concrete syntax is irrelevant, even if those triples are barely recognizable by naive agents. If that's what he's saying, I would agree. Converting barely recognizable triples into a standard form is a trivial process.

Yes, that's my point. It's why I say that RDF didn't invent the Triple.

I've posted a document denoted with the URI/URL 
<http://kingsley.idehen.net/DAV/home/kidehen/Public/DropBox/Public/Linked%20Data%20Resources/linked-data-rdf-test2.ttl> 
in defense of my claim :-)

Kingsley
>
> Jeff
> ________________________________________
> From: David Booth
> Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 10:20:49 PM
> To: Young,Jeff (OR)
> Cc: Luca Matteis; Kingsley Idehen; Linked Data community
> Subject: Re: Proof: Linked Data does not require RDF
>
> Hi Jeff,
>
> I guess I could have said *concrete*-syntax-independent to be more
> precise -- to distinguish it from the *abstract* syntax (or model) --
> but "serialization-independent" works too.  Or "format-independent".
>
> David
>
> On 06/19/2013 09:55 PM, Young,Jeff (OR) wrote:
>> David,
>>
>> I think you've confused syntax-independence with
>> serialization-independence. RDF is syntax-dependent. The syntax is
>> triples. OTOH, triple syntax can be serialized in a wide variety of
>> ways.
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>>> -----Original Message----- From: David Booth
>>> [mailto:david@dbooth.org] Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 9:42 PM
>>> To: Luca Matteis Cc: Kingsley Idehen; Linked Data community
>>> Subject: Re: Proof: Linked Data does not require RDF
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Can you please then setup a pool asking "Does creating and
>>>>> publishing Linked Data require knowledge of RDF?"
>>> I would be willing to make such a poll if it seemed that people
>>> wanted it, but I don't think it is necessary.  There are *many*
>>> document formats that can carry RDF, and it seems self-evident that
>>> someone who publishes an RDF-interpretable format like JSON-LD or
>>> (GRDDL-enabled) XML may not understand RDF **at all**.  This is one
>>> of the great benefits of RDF being syntax independent.  The JSON-LD
>>> group understood this very well and did a great job crafting the
>>> JSON-LD spec to ensure that web developers would *not* have to
>>> understand RDF in order to happily publish their JSON-LD.
>>>
>>> If the data is *interpretable* as RDF, then who cares whether the
>>> publisher understood RDF?  It seems irrelevant to me.
>>>
>>> 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







Received on Thursday, 20 June 2013 11:15:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:16:37 UTC