- From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
- Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 15:35:30 +0200
- To: "'public-rdf-comments'" <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>
On Sunday, June 16, 2013 8:01 PM, Pat Hayes wrote: > On Jun 16, 2013, at 8:15 AM, Markus Lanthaler wrote: > > Here's a very rough draft about how we could paraphrase this to not > > make itsound like a definition: > > > > The World Wide Web is a global information space consisting of > > documents and other resources connected by hyperlinks. The same > > principles that underpin the document-based Web can also be used for > > data. In fact, identifying things, i.e. entities and their properties > > with IRIs (Internationalized Resource Identifiers as described in > > [RFC3987]; a generalized form of URLs) is often beneficial because it > > means that those IRIs can be resolved to find more information about > > those things. Such data is often called Linked Data. As Figure 1 > > illustrates, it has the form of directed graphs, meaning that every > > property points from a node to another node or value. > > > > <<image showing the default graph of Figure 1, no named graphs yet>> > > > > Figure 1: A Linked Data Graph > > > > JSON-LD is a lightweight syntax to serialize Linked Data in JSON > > [RFC4627]... > > > > > > David, would that address your concerns? Could you (and of course > > also the rest of the RDF WG) live with something like this? > > > > Pat, what about the editorial concerns you raised? Do you think this is > > enough clarify that the data model is based on directed graphs early enough > > in the document? > > Well, it helps, but I think a paragraph that outlines the data model > would be better, in addition to this. > > The problem as I see it is, one could (I hear the sound of ice cracking > as I type this) have something that fulfilled the description above > with IRIs as links to other data, etc.., and yet used a completely > different data model. We could have implemented linked data using Excel > tables as our local data model rather than graphs. The idea of using a > node/graph model for storing data locally (the data model that RDF and > JSON-LD have in common) is really orthogonal to the whole using-IRIs- > as-links idea that is the heart of LD. So (quickly getting back onto > firmer ground) I think the document needs to actually say that JSON-LD > *chooses* to use this node/graph model. It doesn't need to say *why*, > just quickly describe the basic model, no details, and use the terms > graph, node, subject/property/value. Sounds like you have something concrete in mind. Do you have a couple of minutes to draft something? I think that would help tremendously. > PS I like the first text better than your replacement, I am afraid. It > is clearer and more to the point. Me too :-( > You could make it less definition- like by the substitution > > > In general, Linked Data > > has four properties: > > // > > Although there is no exact definition of Linked Data, it is typically > has four important properties: > > or some such wording. I'm afraid that this would just be the start of another endless discussion but I would certainly be OK with that. David? -- Markus Lanthaler @markuslanthaler
Received on Monday, 17 June 2013 13:36:04 UTC