- From: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>
- Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 09:45:55 -0400
- To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- CC: "public-rdf-wg@w3.org" <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On Aug 31, 2012, at 5:07 AM, "Kingsley Idehen" <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote: > On 8/31/12 7:51 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote: >> >> >> On 31/08/12 12:29, Kingsley Idehen wrote: >>> It claims any RDF document is a Linked Data document. That simply isn't >>> accurate. The RDF spec makes no claims about IRIs being: >>> >>> 1. de-referencable >>> 2. http: scheme based. >> >> Let's talk about what the document actually says in section 3.1 and not make comments about political opinion and what one "ideal world" might look like. >> >> The document says: >> >> [[ >> 7. IRIs used within a linked data graph SHOULD be dereferenceable to a Linked Data document describing the resource denoted by that IRI. >> ]] >> >> SHOULD, not MUST. >> >> In reality, not all IRIs are going to be dereferencable. >> >> The condition should be "potentially dereferencable" because the burden is far too high otherwise. >> >> We all might think it is a good idea but I for one am not going to condemn a data publisher if it uses another scheme or has not put up a document at some URI at the time of publication. The publisher might have very good reasons for it. > > Not disputing any of that. My issue is that none of the above justifies conflating RDF and Linked Data. What if we amend the sentence as follows: n particular, any document based on an RDF serialization format *using dereferencable IRIs* is a Linked Data document. Gregg >> From experience, this is impractical anyway because you can loose control of a URI space. URIs live on. > > Yes, but the URI/URL address space isn't as important as the actual *denotation* an *indirection* functionality delivered by generic Linked Data URIs. This is why (of late) I've been publishing notes about sample Turtle document [1] that demonstrate how Linked Data can be deployed in a manner that showcases the power of entity names over entity description document addresses, without burdening document publishers with any of the following: > > 1. domain ownership > 2. dns server access with admin privileges > 3. web server ownership > 4. web server access with admin privileges > 5. URI style choices for entity name/ description document address disambiguation. > >> >> JSON-LD does not mention http: schemes and is not limited to them. http: is highly desirable but not necessary. > > But I am talking about the RDF side of things here; specifically about the *inaccurate claim* that any RDF document is a Linked Data document. > > Links: > > 1. http://bit.ly/RJzd9S -- DIY-style Linked Data deployment via Turtle > 2. http://bit.ly/O4LNKf -- DIY-style LInked Data deployment and Web-scale verifiable identity. > >> >> Andy >> >> >> > > > -- > > 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 > > > > >
Received on Friday, 31 August 2012 13:46:57 UTC