- From: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>
- Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2013 08:03:18 -0400
- To: "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org>
- Cc: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, "public-lod@w3.org" <public-lod@w3.org>
Hi Jeff, What does that have to do with anything? You make a straw man argument. By definition, as Nathan mentioned, we are talking about the Web here and thus HTTP. As to most data being in RDF, sure that is right, but there is no reason for it to ever be. However, it is becoming very easy to expose data as RDF for the purposes of interchange regardless of how it is stored. You can query data exposed as RDF using SPARQL. Yay! IBM is leading the Linked Data Platform and announced DB2 as an RDF store. Oracle has two groups working on RDF support, one of which fielded (profitable) product support years ago. Google just announced JSON-LD support in GMail last week, plus playing with all the other major search engines in schema.org, which supports RDFa 1.1 and RDFa 1.1 Lite. It seems to me that they all see the value in Linked Data exposed as RDF while the more vocal members of this list argue esoterica. I doubt I'll respond to this list for a while. My company is keeping me too busy producing and selling a Linked Data platform for enterprises. I'd rather spend my time designing, building, selling and supporting them than argue whether it all works. It already does. Regards, Dave -- http://about.me/david_wood On Jun 21, 2013, at 22:21, "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org> wrote: > Full go. Most data isn't in RDF or accessible via HTTP. You can't squeeze blood out of a stone if you wait for stones to bleed. > > Jeff > ________________________________________ > From: David Wood > Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 10:11:53 PM > To: Kingsley Idehen > Cc: public-lod@w3.org > Subject: Re: What Does Point Number 3 of TimBL's Linked Data Mean? > > On Jun 21, 2013, at 17:44, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote: > >> On 6/21/13 3:06 PM, David Wood 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? >> >> David, >> >> Clearly I don't have a clue about what Linked Data means, so please educate me since I am thoroughly misguided . >> >> Scenario: >> >> I want to implement Linked Data in line with TimBL's revised meme, but I don't know what to do about SPARQL. >> Must I acquire a SPARQL engine or build one? >> Can you simply answer that question since I cannot let you get away these kinds of comments in a public forum when my basic quest is absolute clarity. >> >> Explain to me what SPARQL has to do with it? I've deliberately put RDF aside. > > > If you expose your data to the Web using RDF and HTTP, anyone who wants to /may/ query it using SPARQL. Full stop. > > Regards, > Dave > -- > http://about.me/david_wood > > >> >> Kingsley >> >> >>> >>> 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 >> >> >> >> >> > > >
Received on Saturday, 22 June 2013 12:03:36 UTC