Re: Linked Data and the Original Web Proposal

On 24 June 2013 21:56, Kingsley Idehen <> wrote:

> All,
> I've taken the time to embellish TimBL's original WWW proposal
> illustration with Linked Data URIs [1].
> Why?
> Because, it seems to be unclear (to many) if the original WWW design had
> Linked Data in mind all along.
> My claim and long standing position:
> The original WWW design always had Linked Data in mind, and the proof lies
> in the presence of fundamental Linked Data characteristics which come to
> life once you turn the literal relation names (denotations) into HTTP URIs,
> without cluttering the diagram.
> Remember, the rules for Linked Data publication are:
> 1. use URIs to name (denote) entities (things)
> 2. use HTTP URIs so that names can be looked-up (i.e, by HTTP URI
> de-reference)
> 3. provide useful information when HTTP URIs are looked up -- basically,
> this is where industry standards for data representation and access come
> into play (e.g., RDF and SPARQL, respectively)
> 4. also refer to other entities (things) using their URIs as part of the
> information you provide in #3.
> The WWW proposal diagram shows an collection of entities related is a
> variety of ways i.e., the links/relations are typed. Basically you have a
> relations property hierarchy where "linksTo" or "connectedTo" sits at the
> top with "describes", "includes", "refers to" are sub properties. Writing
> this all up in Turtle should be pretty obvious, and If need be I'll even do
> that too.
> Conclusion:
> The point here is not to create and endless permathread. The simple goal
> is to be crystal clear about Linked Data, the World Wide Web, and
> eventually RDF.
> I am singling out RDF at this point because lost in many of the fragmented
> threads is the fact that I am yet to have any respond with a clear lits of
> characteristics that are unique to RDF i.e., what makes a document
> distinctly RDF and nothing but that?
> The fact that I claim that RDF distinguishing features haven't been
> presented so far in no way implies:
> 1. that they don't exist
> 2. that this is some quest to replace RDF.
> There is only one quest here, and that is to be crystal clear about Linked
> Data while also being crystal clear about RDF. They both deserve clarity
> since conflating them remains eternally detrimental to both. Even worse, it
> just pushes the same old permathreads into the future.
> Links:
> 1. -- directory browsing view exposing the image
> mapped HTML doc, jpeg, and OmniGraffle source file.
> 2. -- original WWW proposal diagram enhanced with
> actual live HTTP URIs (most resolve to documents that describe the URI's
> referent) .

The original (and current) vision is expressed quite well in Tim's book,
"Weaving the Web".  From the first pages:

.. the idea stayed with me that computers could become much more powerful
if they could be programmed to link otherwise unconnected information.

... a vision encompassing the decentralized, organic growth of ideas,
technology, and society. T*he vision I have for the Web is about anything
being potentially connected with anything*. It is a vision that provides us
with new freedom, and allows us to grow faster than we ever could when we
were fettered by the hierarchical classification systems into which we
bound ourselves. It leaves the entirety of our previous ways of working as
just one tool among many. It leaves our previous fears for the future as
one set among many. And it brings the workings of society closer to the
workings of our minds.

> --
> Regards,
> Kingsley Idehen
> Founder & CEO
> OpenLink Software
> Company Web:
> Personal Weblog:**blog/~kidehen<>
> Twitter/ handle: @kidehen
> Google+ Profile:**112399767740508618350/about<>
> LinkedIn Profile:**kidehen<>

Received on Monday, 24 June 2013 20:08:16 UTC