Re: What Does Point Number 3 of TimBL's Linked Data Mean?

On 22 June 2013 01:03, Nathan Rixham <nathan@webr3.org> wrote:

> Linked Data is a moving target, it's not Linked Data 1.0, 1.1, 2.0 etc,
> it's a set of technologies which make it easy to have machine readable data
> that is interlinked on the web.
>
> If Linked Data is built on HTTP currently, then the media types used have
> to be registered, which limits the set, but this set of supported
> mediatypes can and will change over time, as will the protocols used, as
> will the ontologies and the data, and so forth.
>
> You can't lock it in stone, or preclude innovation and new specifications,
> common sense and basic web architecture entail using URIs/IRIs, common
> protocols (HTTP), registered media types, and so forth, but if a large eco
> system of data in a new media type is developed or an older one
> bootstrapped and commonly supported, it's going to be Linked Data.
>
> Interoperability, modularity, and, tolerance - they're all critical, and
> none of them entail forever using only RDF and SPARQL
>
+1000


>
>
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 11:38 PM, Stephane Fellah <fellahst@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 5:49 PM, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>wrote:
>>
>>>  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?
>>>
>>
>> I just said they are the standards for Linked Data. You want to call it
>> implementation details. This is misleading because you imply that it is OK
>> to use other standards. I think that I differ we you. It is not a detail.
>> It is the standard so you leverage all the technologies and tools developed
>> on this foundation.
>>
>>
>>
>>>  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*.
>>>
>>>
>> Let me make an analogy of the current discussion:
>>
>> The *Open Systems Interconnection (OSI) model i*s a conceptual model<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conceptual_model> that
>> characterizes and standardizes the internal functions of a communications
>> system <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_system> by
>> partitioning it into abstraction layers<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstraction_layer>.
>> This model is used to built the Internet.
>>
>> Now you come and say:
>>
>> * TCP/IP is an implementation details of the Internet of the OSI stack.
>>  We do not need to use TCP/IP to make Internet work, which is true (UDP is
>> an alternative protocol for example).
>>
>> What happens if you use something else than TCP/IP today ? You will build
>> your own implementation of Internet and you will find yourself pretty
>> isolated because you have no way to interoperate with the widely used
>> TCP/IP based Internet.  You will have to start from scratch and rebuild all
>> the set of tools and technologies to leverage your new standards. You
>> fracture the internet into silos.  What did you accomplish by introducing a
>> new implementation detail, except saying : Hey look at my awesome internet
>> implementation that does the same thing that the Internet. If you want to
>> use it, you have to buy/use all my technology stack ?  Guess what would be
>> my answer ? Good luck to get your proprietary system widely adopted...
>>
>> To avoid fracture, you have to agree on widely adopted OPEN standards. By
>> using OPEN standards, people can built something useful on  stable
>> foundation on which there is no commercial interest of any kind.  RDF is a
>> W3C OPEN standard and is widely used today by developers dealing with
>> Linked Data. There are today a lot of tools available built on these
>> standards. There is no good incentive to provide an alternative to RDF
>> model. I cannot see any better and simpler model than the triple model
>> based on URIs. May be you can enlight me what is wrong with RDF? What your
>> "enhanced RDF" model is all about? (Keep in mind that RDF can have
>> different serializations such as JSON-LD, TTL, N3 etc..).
>>
>> Sincerely
>> Stephane
>>
>>
>>>
>>> *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><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>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>
>>>> 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
>>>> > 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>