Re: Linked Data discussions require better communication

On 6/20/13 12:50 PM, Stephane Fellah wrote:
> Hi,
> I agree with Luca's viewpoint. The W3C standard RDF model (a.k.a 
> triple model) is one of most fundamental piece of the technology stack 
> defining Linked Data (along with URIs and HTTP).

I am not disputing that point.

Here's what in dispute, and the topic of debate to me: the misconception 
that you MUST know anything about RDF en route to creating and 
publishing Linked Data. RDF is an optional implementation detail with a 
particular outcome in mind i.e., the ability for humans and machines to 
understand the entity relationship semantics that constitute the Linked 

> I think it is important to make understand the community that Linked 
> Data  can be serialized into different representations (Turtle, 
> RDF/XML, JSON-LD, N3, NTriples, TrigG, and any future formats) , as 
> long as they are isomorphic to RDF model (meaning data can be 
> converted to a set of triples and identifiers are based on URIs).

I really don't believe that I am disputing this point. Neither do I 
believe the point (above) is new to anyone on this list.

> If the data are NOT convertible to RDF model, I do not consider it as 
> Linked Data.

And that assertion is inaccurate. It is also indefensible. The World 
Wide Web as it already exists is full of Linked Data for which RDF 
processors may or may not exist. It functions, humans and programs 
understand the "LinksTo" relation etc.. That's why it works and scales 
the way it does.

Guess what, even though the World Wide Web is dominated by HTML content, 
it was bootstrapped on the back of a draconian mandate that everything 
MUST be interpretable as HTML.

Ironically, DBpedia most powerful deliverable was the use of HTML to 
expose the concept of Linked Data. We stuck RDF/XML and other formats in 
the footer pages of said documents.

> To make the system works, you need some set of standards on which 
> everyone agree: HTTP, URIs, RDF are fundamental to Linked Data.

URIs and web-liked structured data representation are fundamental to 
Linked Data.

RDF is fundamental to Blogic.

>  Saying we do not need RDF model for Linked Data is like saying we do 
> not need URL or HTTP for the web of documents.

Again, here is what I am saying: You don't need to know anything about 
RDF to create and publish Linked Data. Please read my words, don't react 
to them.

> Sincerely
> Stephane Fellah
> On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 11:45 AM, Luca Matteis < 
> <>> wrote:
>     On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Melvin Carvalho
>     < <>> wrote:
>       # Restate/reflect ideas that in other posts that are
>         troubling/puzzling and ask for confirmation or clarification.
>     I am simply confused with the idea brought forward by Kingsley
>     that RDF is *not* part of the definition of Linked Data. The
>     evidence shows the contrary: the top sites that define Linked
>     Data, such as Wikipedia, and Tim-BL's meme
>     specifically mention RDF, for example:
>     "It builds upon standard Web technologies such as HTTP, RDF and
>     URIs" -
>     "connecting pieces of data, information, and knowledge on the
>     Semantic Web using URIs and RDF." -
>     This is *the only thing* that I'm discussing here. Nothing else.
>     The current *definition* of Linked Data.
>       # Restate the actual subject and focus of the discussion; the
>         subject line just doesn’t always cut it.
>     Again the subject line is the *definition* of the term Linked
>     Data. More specifically whether it includes (or should include) RDF.
>       # Do more explication with the awareness that we might be
>         talking about two (or more!) related but separate
>         ideas/concepts. Or we could be using the same terms but with
>         slightly different definitions.
>     I want to concentrate on the current definition of the Linked Data
>     term. Why do the main sites built from the Linked Data community
>     *strictly* describe RDF as one of the main technologies that
>     enable Linked Data?
>       # Define the terms inline rather than just linking out. One’s
>         interpretation of an external standard or specification could
>         be different from someone else’s, so I think it would be good
>         to own it.
>     I simply think RDF is part of Linked Data's definition, because of
>     the evidence I have shown above. If this is not the case, we
>     should discuss it as a community. If we decide that RDF is *not*
>     part of the definition of Linked Data, we should probably remove
>     it from all the top sites, otherwise it will create confusion for
>     newcomers.
>     Also we should make new Linked Data coffee mugs ;-)
>     Luca



Kingsley Idehen	
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web:
Personal Weblog:
Twitter/ handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile:
LinkedIn Profile:

Received on Thursday, 20 June 2013 17:29:11 UTC