Re: Linked Data and the Original Web Proposal

On 6/24/13 4:24 PM, Luca Matteis wrote:
> Kingsley, how about being crystal clear of HTTP as well then? Isn't 
> that an "implementation detail" just as your understanding of "RDF 
> within Linked Data" is?
> - sorry for unleashing hell again

There is not hell being unleashed. When did asking questions become a 
terrible thing?  In fact, HTTP is an implementation detail. Of course, 
when you take into consideration that HTTP URIs lie at the core of the 
World Wide Web, its most cost-effective to use this type of resolvable 
URI to get going with Linked Data.

To answer you question, precisely: HTTP is an implementation detail just 
like RDF and SPARQL :-)

The thing about all of this (which Ora Lassila also tried to articulate) 
is the fact that ultimately, the productive way to produce *powerful* 
Linked Data boils down to these implementation details:

1. HTTP URIs -- so that you don't have to write your own URI resolver
2. RDF data model -- {*I won't answer this until we make progress re. my 
question about RDF's unique characteristics*}
3. SPARQL protocol based URLs -- an option for handling content 
negotiation via re-write rules which is part of the Linked Data URI 
lookup functionality .

> On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 10:07 PM, Melvin Carvalho 
> < <>> wrote:
>     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:
>         <>
>         Twitter/ handle: @kidehen
>         Google+ Profile:
>         LinkedIn Profile:



Kingsley Idehen	
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web:
Personal Weblog:
Twitter/ handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile:
LinkedIn Profile:

Received on Monday, 24 June 2013 20:47:52 UTC