- From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2015 16:25:15 +0100
- To: public-sdw-comments@w3.org
I've had 'read the thread about hypermedia' on my to do list since it started - and have finally done so. But for the fact that Rob's suggested use case is about hydrology, I'm struggling to see a link here with spatial data per se. This looks like a more general Data on the Web WG issue - one that I know that group would be very happy to take up, especially if help were available (I'll bring it to their attention) Phil. On 06/08/2015 00:45, Simon.Cox@csiro.au wrote: > Right. I'm on Kingsley's side. Pragmatically there is no competition, but nevertheless RDF & SPARQL can be seen as implementation details. It is not essential to mention them in order to talk about linked data and hypertext, and there may be real benefits in not alienating some elements in the web community by insisting on it up front. > > Simon Cox | Research Scientist > CSIRO Land and Water > 37 Graham Road, Highett, Vic 3190 > PO Box 56, Highett, Vic 3190 > Tel +61 3 9545 2365 | Mob +61 403 302 672 > simon.cox@csiro.au | http://people.csiro.au/C/S/Simon-Cox > > > ________________________________________ > From: Krzysztof Janowicz [janowicz@ucsb.edu] > Sent: Thursday, 6 August 2015 8:20 AM > To: public-sdw-comments@w3.org > Subject: Re: adding hypermedia to spatial data best practices > > Hi Simon, all, > > This was intensively discussed on the Linked Data list about two years > ago (https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lod/2013Jun/). While > you could envision Linked Data that is not RDF-based, it is difficult to > do so -- especially for 5-star data. I certainly agree with what you are > saying but trying to untangle this would be a nightmare and I am not > sure what the value proposition would be. Clearly, the entire Web of > Data does not need to be (and is not) RDF-based but I do not know of any > Linked Data that is not RDF-based. > >> and still believe that the main value is in the linking, not the >> metamodel of what what you're linking > > This is more than the linking, it is also about how you are linking, how > you dereference identifiers, statement vs facts, going away from the > data-metadata distinction, the direct semantics of RDF, and so forth. > > Best, > Krzysztof > > > > On 08/05/2015 02:34 PM, Simon.Cox@csiro.au wrote: >>> most people assume that linked data *is* RDF by definition. >> Yes - there is an unfortunate conflation. No question that when it comes to more formal semantics, RDF and OWL based systems are the go-to option, particularly on the web. But Linked Data does not depend on RDF and it is unfortunate that some folk slide into that assumption all too easily and often, and it would be better if they didn't. That was exactly the point I was trying to make at the beginning of this thread. >> >> Simon Cox | Research Scientist >> CSIRO Land and Water >> 37 Graham Road, Highett, Vic 3190 >> PO Box 56, Highett, Vic 3190 >> Tel +61 3 9545 2365 | Mob +61 403 302 672 >> simon.cox@csiro.au | http://people.csiro.au/C/S/Simon-Cox >> >> >> ________________________________________ >> From: Erik Wilde [dret@berkeley.edu] >> Sent: Thursday, 6 August 2015 2:40 AM >> To: Frans Knibbe; public-sdw-comments@w3.org >> Cc: Joshua Lieberman; Rob Atkinson; Cox, Simon (L&W, Highett); Jeremy Tandy; Ed Parsons >> Subject: Re: adding hypermedia to spatial data best practices >> >> hello frans. >> >> On 2015-08-05 4:24 , Frans Knibbe wrote: >>> The way I understand it, RDF is not a data format but a data model, a >>> way of structuring data and modelling the world. It is something like >>> the relational model that is used in relational databases. >> yes, i probably should have said model and not format. but one way or >> the other, it's simply a specific way to model graph data, and in itself >> has no relation to hypermedia models/formats. >> >>> It depends on who you ask, but ties between Linked Data and RDF need not >>> be that strong. The original principles >>> <http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html> mention RDF as one of >>> 'the standards' that should be used but the Five Star data schem >>> <http://5stardata.info/>e does not mandate RDF for any level of stars. >> yes, it depends on who you ask. but most people assume that linked data >> *is* RDF by definition. quite a while ago, this happened: >> >> http://dret.typepad.com/dretblog/2009/11/the-linked-data-police.html >> >> since then, i have been careful to not use the term when talking about >> the more general concept of data that is linked. and just this past may, >> i was at the LDOW workshop at WWW2015 and once again encouraged the core >> community to be less dogmatic about *what* data model to use, and to >> simply focus on the linking. but most people did not like the idea and >> preferred to stay within the world view that in order for something to >> be linked data, it must be RDF. >> >> that's why https://github.com/dret/webdata came into being. i think >> there's huge value in linking data, and RDF is just one way to do it. if >> people find another model a better fit, they still should get some >> guidance on how to link it in the best way. web data is supposed to be >> linked data without the "must be RDF" constraint, and i think it could >> be useful to have a term (maybe "web data", maybe something else) that >> would be broader than one specific technology, but still focus on the >> linkage of data that creates so much value when used properly. >> >>> It just so happens that RDF is a model that is very well suited for data >>> on the web: you can model just about anything and data elements are >>> identifiable by HTTP URIs. >> sure. i don't dislike RDF. it has many advantages. but like any >> metamodel, it's a good fit for some things and not such a great fit for >> others. you can also model just about anything in XML, JSON, SGML, or >> any other metamodel language. people exposing data should have the >> freedom to pick the metamodel that's the best fit for their requirements. >> >>> I sincerely hope that we can work without a strict distinction between >>> data on the web from a REST/human perspective and a Linked Data/machine >>> perspective. I hope we can satisfy the needs of both worlds in a single, >>> well considered pass. >> i agree, and i think that's why ideally, there should be no dogmatism >> when it comes to choosing technologies. what matters most in creating >> the value of webby data is the pattern, and for the web, that pattern is >> hypermedia. (or what REST calls HATEOAS, easily earning the price for >> the worst acronym ever.) >> >> cheers, >> >> dret. >> >> -- >> erik wilde | mailto:dret@berkeley.edu - tel:+1-510-2061079 | >> | UC Berkeley - School of Information (ISchool) | >> | http://dret.net/netdret http://twitter.com/dret | > > > -- > Krzysztof Janowicz > > Geography Department, University of California, Santa Barbara > 4830 Ellison Hall, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-4060 > > Email: jano@geog.ucsb.edu > Webpage: http://geog.ucsb.edu/~jano/ > Semantic Web Journal: http://www.semantic-web-journal.net > -- Phil Archer W3C Data Activity Lead http://www.w3.org/2013/data/ http://philarcher.org +44 (0)7887 767755 @philarcher1
Received on Thursday, 6 August 2015 15:25:16 UTC