- From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 17:49:53 -0400
- To: public-lod@w3.org
- Message-ID: <51C4CA81.1020702@openlinksw.com>
On 6/21/13 3:25 PM, Stephane Fellah wrote: > +1 David. > > It is clear that interoperability of any system is enabled by a set of > widely adopted standards (similar to TCP/IP for internet, HTTP/URI for > the Web). TBL clearly indicated in his revised document that the > standards for Linked Data are URI, HTTP, RDF and SPARQL for the query > language. I am not going to argue with this, like I am not going to > argue that HTTP is the protocol for hypertext. You may argue that the > specs are imperfect, but they are truly a solid foundation for SW > architecture. The specs can be revised and improved other time (such > HTTP 1.0,HTTP 1.1, SPARQL 1.1, RDF 1.1, OWL 2.0). > > While the writing is TBL's personal opinion, RDF and SPARQL are W3C > standards. Introducing other standards would break interoperability of > the system. This would be my last intervention on this subject, as I > think I explain enough my position. I just do not have the energy and > time to keep arguing about this topic,as it brings nothing new on the > table to improve the goal of SW. What part of the excerpt below (from my opening post of this thread) contradicts the fact that SPARQL and RDF are W3C standards? What do I mean by RDF and SPARQL are Linked Data implementation details? I said: They (RDF and SPARQL) are W3C standards that aid the process of building Linked Data (as outlined in the *TimBL's revised meme*). That said, it doesn't mean that you cannot take other paths to Linked Data while remaining 100% compliant with the essence of *TimBL's original Linked Data meme*. *Example:* DBpedia (and other LInked Data endeavors that leverage Virtuoso or tools like Pubby) apply point number three (*either meme version*) as follows: 1. use HTTP re-write rules to generate SPARQL Protocol URLs 2. use content negotiation to align SPARQL protocol URLs with the content types requested by an HTTP user agent. The net effect of the above is as follows: 1. HTML browsers become Linked Data Browsers -- including IE6 (you can follow-your-nose to wherever curiosity takes you without exiting HTML) 2. CSV Browsers become Linked Data Browsers -- I've demonstrated this using SPARQL-FED based SPARQL protocol URLs that simply return CSV output 3. RDF processors are exposed to the expanse of Linked Data -- i.e., they have wider access to entities enhanced with an understanding of their relationship semantics 4. OWL processors are exposed to the expanse of Linked Data -- ditto ++. *The Question* What happens when someone seeks an alternative route to the same destination? What happens when someone has already produced Linked Data compatible with the original meme modulo RDF and SPARQL? Links (*Live Links/References Relevant Information*): 1. http://bit.ly/14gE7wQ -- TimBL's original Linked Data meme 2. http://bit.ly/NvbPLF -- TimBL's revised Linked Data meme 3. http://dbpedia.org/resource/Linked_data -- DBpedia URI for the Linked Data concept 4. http://bit.ly/13lcdAM -- Vapor (Linked Data verification utility) report for <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Linked_data> 5. http://bit.ly/16EVFVG -- Venn diagram illustrating how some of us see the relationship between Linked Data, RDF, and Identifiers. Kingsley > > Sincerely > Stephane > > > On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 3:06 PM, David Wood <david@3roundstones.com > <mailto:david@3roundstones.com>> wrote: > > Hi Kingsley, > > I really [1] hate to get drawn on this, but I think that Tim made > it rather clear with his revised Design Issue document that the > standards (RDF* and SPARQL) were necessary. That's why he added > them. I agree. > > Now, perhaps we can stop having the same discussion in thirty > different threads? Please? > > Regards, > Dave > -- > http://about.me/david_wood > > [1] *Really!* > > On Jun 21, 2013, at 13:06, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com > <mailto:kidehen@openlinksw.com>> wrote: > > > All, > > > > Situation Analysis (for additional context): > > > > There are two versions of Design Issues documents [1][2] from > TimBL where the primary topic is Linked Data. Both documents a > comprised of four bullet points that outline a principled approach > to document content production and publication en route to a Web > of Data. > > > > Naturally, for a majority of folks, TimBL's design issue memes > (irrespective of their clearly stated disclaimers) are deemed > authoritative with regards to matters relating to Web Architecture > and best practices. > > > > Current Problem: > > > > The fundamental meaning of point three in both Linked Data memes > has *inadvertently* lead to very strong differences of opinion, > with regards to interpretation. Here are the two interpretations > (that I know of) which stand out the most: > > > > 1. RDF and SPARQL are implementation details > > 2. RDF and SPARQL aren't implementation details -- basically, > you can't produce Linked Data without knowledge and/or a > commitment to either. > > > > Why do we need to resolve this matter? > > > > It has become a distraction at every level, it is basically > leading to fragmentation where there should be common > understanding. For example, some of us are more comfortable with > RDF and SPARQL as implementation details while others aren't (it > seems!). This difference of interpretation appears insignificant > at first blush, but as you drill-down into the many threads about > this matter we also hit the key issues of *tolerance* vs *dogma*. > > > > What do I mean by RDF and SPARQL are Linked Data implementation > details? > > > > They are W3C standards that aid the process of building Linked > Data (as outlined in the TimBL's revised meme). That said, it > doesn't mean that you cannot take other paths to Linked Data while > remaining 100% compliant with the essence of TimBL's original > Linked Data meme. > > > > > > Example: > > > > DBpedia (and other LInked Data endeavors that leverage Virtuoso > or tools like Pubby) apply point number three (either meme > version) as follows: > > > > 1. use HTTP re-write rules to generate SPARQL Protocol URLs > > 2. use content negotiation to align SPARQL protocol URLs with > the content types requested by an HTTP user agent. > > > > The net effect of the above is as follows: > > > > 1. HTML browsers become Linked Data Browsers -- including IE6 > (you can follow-your-nose to wherever curiosity takes you without > exiting HTML) > > 2. CSV Browsers become Linked Data Browsers -- I've demonstrated > this using SPARQL-FED based SPARQL protocol URLs that simply > return CSV output > > 3. RDF processors are exposed to the expanse of Linked Data -- > i.e., they have wider access to entities enhanced with an > understanding of their relationship semantics > > 4. OWL processors are exposed to the expanse of Linked Data -- > ditto ++. > > > > Links: > > > > 1. http://bit.ly/14gE7wQ -- TimBL's original Linked Data meme > > 2. http://bit.ly/NvbPLF -- TimBL's revised Linked Data meme > > 3. http://dbpedia.org/resource/Linked_data -- DBpedia URI for > the Linked Data concept > > 4. http://bit.ly/13lcdAM -- Vapor (Linked Data verification > utility) report for <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Linked_data> > > 5. http://bit.ly/16EVFVG -- Venn diagram illustrating how some > of us see the relationship between Linked Data, RDF, and Identifiers. > > > > -- > > > > Regards, > > > > Kingsley Idehen > > Founder & CEO > > OpenLink Software > > Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com > > Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen > <http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/%7Ekidehen> > > Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen > > Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about > > LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen > > > > > > > > > > > > -- 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
Attachments
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Received on Friday, 21 June 2013 21:50:16 UTC