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

On 6/21/13 7:03 PM, Nathan Rixham 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

Thank You!

Kingsley
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 11:38 PM, Stephane Fellah <fellahst@gmail.com 
> <mailto:fellahst@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>     On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 5:49 PM, Kingsley Idehen
>     <kidehen@openlinksw.com <mailto: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 <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  <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

Received on Saturday, 22 June 2013 13:03:19 UTC