Re: Normative vs Informative

On 11/28/11 2:52 PM, Henry Story wrote:
> On 28 Nov 2011, at 20:43, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>
>> On 11/28/11 2:31 PM, Henry Story wrote:
>>> Please, let's stop this type of empty talk, and start building cool apps.
>> How do a lot of people build cool apps of specificity hits them at the front door? Said issue arises because a simple concept is obscured by syntax preferences that appear as syntax specificity?
> Look we are very pragmatic.  We embrace ASN.1, X509 because we are working with legacy technology that works. We combine that with semantic web tools, because WebID makes sense as Linked Data tool. To those who don't get LinkedData the whole point of WebID will be lost. Linked Data is the point of the Semantic Web and RDF.

No, Linked Data is not the point of the Semantic Web and RDF.

Linked Data is one of the points (and a critical one) re. The Semantic 
Web Project.

RDF is one mechanism (not discernible from its spec btw) for crafting 
Linked Data.

Linked Data is the end result of a  *kind* of directed graph. The 
distinction I am making lies at the root of all confusion about this 
subject.

Making Linked Data structures via directed graphs is pre Web developers 
have programmed for eons.

" Files are uniformly regarded as consisting of a stream of bytes; the 
system makes no assumptions as to their contents. Thus the structure of 
files is controlled solely by the programs which read and write them. A 
file of ASCII text, for example, consists simply of a stream of 
characters delimited by the new-line characters. The notion of physical 
record is fairly well submerged." -- Dennis Ritchie (RIP).

WWW abstraction exposed files (a type of resource) at InterWeb scales.

A Document is a kind of file.

You can have a kind of file that consists of EAV/SPO based triples re. 
directed graphs with the sole purpose of describing an observation subject.

In all of this I still have mentioned R-D-F.
>
> So there is no point to bend over to try to deal with people who don't get Linked Data.

People get Linked Data, they even get the contemporary variant delivered 
to them via URIs (courtesy of TimBL's design note). What they will never 
get is how all of this came to be about RDF solely. Basically, its RDF 
or go home. RDF cannot be an option. It is the alpha and omega or 
nothing at all.

>
>> If an app can make a directed graph and traverse its tapestry en route to verifying existence of a "mirrored claim" but does so without any interest in RDF, right now you'll reject it as heretic.
>>
>> If you really want people to build apps, the be clear about what profile we mean here. WebID is an example of what you can do with a Web with semantically enhanced tapestry. None of that really means RDF solely. This is the hurdle you are really refusing to cross. RDF is but an option. The Web is much more than RDF and its the Web and its underlying architecture that make things like InterWeb scale Linked Data possible.
> I don't understand anything you say Kingsley.

Try a little harder. I understand what you are saying and I see 
dangerous flaws. These flaws will bite down the line.

>   OpenLink is known because it brought linked data with the RDF model to great visibility. If it were not for that I would never have heard of it. Those who need SQL databases,  will go to Oracle before they do anything else.
>
>> RDF always introduces unnecessary complexity and distraction
> No it does not.

Yes it does! And the bottom line is that's where we differ.


>   It is the cornerstone of everything we are doing.

It isn't there is nothing you are doing that I can't do without RDF. As 
I've already shown you repeatedly, if you bother to look.
The magic and power comes from:

1. URIs
2. HTTP -- separation of data access protocol and data representation
3. EAV based data model comprised of de-referencable URIs.

RDF is one adaptation of the above. It's an option.

Simple demo: http://dbpedia.org/resource/Linked_Data --- please look at 
the footer in the page produced by your browser!

>   On this group we will be doing things the RDF way.

You are working with Linked Data for which RDF is one of many options.

> There is no changing that.

Nobody is asking you to change that.
It comments like that (from you in particular, whom I actually know 
personally) that terrify me.

Suggesting that RDF is an option isn't the same as saying:

1. RDF is usless
2. RDF shouldn't be used
3. RDF is dead
4. etc..

It's just about understanding that RDF is one of many options for WebID.
A majority of Web Developers simply detest RDF, period! Why loose them 
just because of the mangled use of the letters R-D-F ?

> I am sure you won't mind.

I only have problems misuse of RDF i.e., imposing it on people when all 
it does is defeat the big picture goal of bootstrap.
>
> So let's move this discussion on.

Remember, I have a boat load of RDF based applications that showcase the 
prowess of Linked Data and beyond. RDF gives me nothing but commercial 
advantages across the spectrum, but none of that will ever make me 
impose it on anyone, overtly or covertly!

>
> Henry
>
>
>
>> -- 
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> Social Web Architect
> http://bblfish.net/
>
>
>


-- 

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