- From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2013 09:02:55 -0400
- To: public-lod@w3.org
- Message-ID: <51C5A07F.1050402@openlinksw.com>
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
Attachments
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Received on Saturday, 22 June 2013 13:03:19 UTC