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

On 6/25/13 12:19 AM, David Booth wrote:
>
> The problem is that some people are claiming that RDF is not a 
> *necessary* component of Linked Data.

Loosely coupled does not mean *not necessary* it means what it says 
i.e., RDF and Linked Data are loosely coupled. It isn't an "all or 
nothing" proposition.

For the umpteenth time, I am asserting that you don't need to be 
knowledgeable in RDF or be aware of its existence in order to produce 
Linked Data. I've even illustrated my position in a venn [1] diagram 
which showcases how Linked Data, RDF, and Predicate Logic are related. 
I've also tweaked TimBL's original World Wide Web proposal diagram by 
turning the literal identifiers into actual Linked Data URIs (just click 
on the nodes or connectors to see what I mean) [2].

BTW -- you haven't answered the question about how one interprets RDF 
without any "reasoning" and "inference".  Also note these excerpts from 
a post made Pat Hayes posted in another thread about RDF:

  "An RDF graph is true exactly when:

1. the IRIs and literals in subject or object position in the graph all 
refer to things,
2. there is some way to interpret all the blank nodes in the graph as 
referring to things,
3. the IRIs in property position refer to binary relationships,
4. and under these interpretations, each triple S P O in the graph 
asserts that the thing referred to as S, and the thing referred to as O, 
do in fact stand in the relationship referred to by P."

There is nothing in what Pat states above that's inconsistent with my 
understanding of RDF as illustrated in my venn diagram. My diagram also 
illustrates the basic point that you can produce Linked Data without 
knowing anything about 1-4. Note, that doesn't in any way imply that the 
result is either particularly useful or superior to RDF based Linked Data.

Now I remain crystal clear about the fact that we disagree about the 
venn (which is consistent with our debate) what I need you to explain to 
me (and possibly others) is how one *interprets* RDF without "reasoning" 
and "inference" and by that I mean: how does a human or a user agent 
(machine) makes sense (interpret) RDF based content without performing 
any reasoning and inference?


Links:

1. http://bit.ly/16EVFVG  -- venn diagram illustrating how Identifiers 
(IRIs), Linked Data, and RDF are related.

2. http://bit.ly/16v8fpR   -- tweaked version of TimBL's original WWW 
proposal via the use of Linked Data URIs (the literal entity and 
relations denotations have be turned into Linked Data URIs, so just on 
them).

-- 

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