- From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 09:38:52 -0400
- To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <50869DEC.9030707@openlinksw.com>
On 10/23/12 8:50 AM, Guus Schreiber wrote: > [not a response to Peter, but to the discussion in general] > > This is an interesting and important discussion, but I'm not sure it > deserves much WG time at this point in time. We are the RDF WG and we > have to consider what we require of (the normative documentation of) > the relationship between RDF and JSON-LD. > > Guus Guus, The key to solving a problem is understanding the problem. I'll try to break it down, one more time. You have RDF, JSON-LD, and a non existent thing called JSON-RDF+LD . There is an argument about JSON-LD that's really all about JSON-RDF+LD. That's it. Kingsley > > > > > > On 23-10-2012 14:19, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: >> I'm with Pat on this one. >> >> It is true that I don't understand this view of linked data, but I don't >> think that the fault here lies in me. This set of principles is too >> vague to be anything more than a slogan. It appears that just about any >> logic can be used, even truly weird ones, by simply using IRIs for >> identifiers. >> >> If Linked Data was >> - use dereferenceable IRIs for identifiers >> - have a semantics where identifiers globally denote >> - have a common semantic framework >> - if you coin a new IRI use one that you control >> - use IRIs coined by others where possible >> - when someone asks for the document at an IRI provide information that >> you believe about what you believe the IRI to denote >> - provide information in a well-known syntax under the common semantic >> framework >> Then I would be happier. >> >> I would be even happier if Linked Data utilized the RDF(S)(++)(+) >> semantics and the syntaxes were for RDF graphs. >> >> peter >> >> On 10/23/2012 07:25 AM, Richard Cyganiak wrote: >>> Hi Pat, >>> >>> On 23 Oct 2012, at 03:07, Pat Hayes wrote: >>>>>> I would be very interested to discover what y'all consider the be >>>>>> the definition of Linked Data. Can you provide a pointer to where >>>>>> this can be found? Thanks in advance. >>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linked_Data >>>> This is completely vacuous, almost a textbook example of a Wikipedia >>>> article that is free of content (there are quite a number of them.) >>>> For example, it begins, " linked data describes a method of >>>> publishing structured data" but it then does not tell us what this >>>> "method" actually is. Which is what my query was asking for. What >>>> actually IS "linked data"? If I were shown some data, or a data >>>> storage scheme of some kind, how would I know if it were an example >>>> of linked data? How would I tell? What criteria would I use to detect >>>> the presence of "linkedness" in the data? (Can anyone give me an >>>> example of data that is not linked data, and tell me why it isn't? >>>> That would be a start.) >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linked_Data#Principles >>> >>>> That is great, but how would anyone know that this is what they were >>>> in fact doing? Does just using JSON + using URIs make it linked data? >>>> Apparently not, according to the Wikipedia article, which says that >>>> linked data pre-dates URIs. >>> No, it says that the general idea predates URIs (and that claim is >>> flagged with [citation needed]), but that the term was coined by >>> TimBL. Following the references you'll see that his original article >>> prominently features URIs. >>> >>>> So what is it that makes the linked magic happen? >>> See the link above. >>> >>>> This is completely vacuous >>>> free of content >>>> empty phrase devoid of meaning >>> >>> Translation Pat => English: “I don't understand it.” >>> >>> Best, >>> Richard >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> Pat >>>> >>>> >>>>> That's great. However, there's a thin line between saying “we enable >>>>> LD with JSON” and “JSON-LD is how you do LD”. The JSON-LD spec >>>>> really ought to say only the first thing, but slips into implying >>>>> the second too often. >>>>> >>>>> Attempting to enforce a particular implementation technology for >>>>> Linked Data, be it RDF or JSON or Atom or Microdata or whatever, >>>>> doesn't work. This is what Kingsley keeps repeating on a daily >>>>> basis, and he's right. >>>>> >>>>> The fact that a JSON-LD document also can be parsed to an RDF graph >>>>> is mostly orthogonal to this. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> Richard >>>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 >>>> 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office >>>> Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax >>>> FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile >>>> phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> > > -- 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
Attachments
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Received on Tuesday, 23 October 2012 13:39:17 UTC