Re: Linked Data discussions require better communication

On 20 June 2013 19:46, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> wrote:

> Kingsley, long story short, what you mean when you say "linked data" is
> not exactly what most other people mean when they say those words. Your
> understanding of what they mean is much wider and more all-encompassing
> than the common meaning. Personally, I see what you are getting at and (I
> think) why you feel it is important, but I think the common, rather
> narrower, meaning is more useful in conversation, provided it is not used
> in a kind of not-invented-here way to exclude things from discussion or
> imply that they are not valid or proper.
>
> What is certainly not useful, however, is to keep on loudly disagreeing
> with people who mean something else.  (Of course, that last sentence
> applies to several people on this thread.)
>
> Pat
>
> PS. To address your main "topic of debate": maybe someone can be using RDF
> without knowing that they are using RDF. (Like Moliere's bourgous
> gentihomme.) WIth the rise of JSON-LD, I suspect that this will in fact be
> the most common situation.
>

In 2004 the RDF brand failed when web 2.0 was unable to integrate FOAF into
their products.  It's taken 5 years+ to simplify things down to the Linked
Data meme ("The semantic web done right") and is starting to gain some
traction.

I think Kingsley was exactly trying to communicate that people should take
a holistic approach to LD, and avoid the type of NIH which can and has
created silos.  Perhaps you object to the tone in which it was delivered.

The beauty of of LD is that it's simple and can be understood by a wide
range or people (especially outside academia).  In terms of branding it's
valid to feel that conflating LD and RDF would be a premature
optimization.

"The way the Web spread was a piece at a time. So you could take html
without taking http. So the failure of NEXT was a lesson, don’t try to sell
it all at one time. Sell each piece on its own merits. Never insist that
everybody take all. They will take all the pieces once they see how it fits
together." -- Tim Berners-Lee


>
> On Jun 20, 2013, at 12:28 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>
> > 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 Data.
> >
> >
> >> 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.
> >
> >
> > Kingsley
> >>
> >> Sincerely
> >> Stephane Fellah
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 11:45 AM, Luca Matteis <lmatteis@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Melvin Carvalho <
> melvincarvalho@gmail.com> 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,
> Linkeddata.org and Tim-BL's meme specifically mention RDF, for example:
> >>
> >> "It builds upon standard Web technologies such as HTTP, RDF and URIs" -
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linked_data
> >> "connecting pieces of data, information, and knowledge on the Semantic
> Web using URIs and RDF." - http://linkeddata.org/
> >>
> >> 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
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> IHMC                                     (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973
> 40 South Alcaniz St.           (850)202 4416   office
> Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fax
> FL 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile
> phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
>
>
>
>
>
>
>