- From: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 09:46:57 +0200
- To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Cc: Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAKaEYhJ2Uk7rbZ-dxxXC0dHhzf50V=R1p6HR8F1PuhHU6440XQ@mail.gmail.com>
On 17 June 2013 07:26, David Booth <david@dbooth.org> wrote: > There seems to be some persistent misunderstanding about the role of RDF > in Linked Data, as evidenced by comments like the following: > > "RDF is just one implementation of Linked Data" > > If Linked Data is intended to support the goal of the Semantic Web, then > unless the Semantic Web is re-architected with a new foundation, RDF is > *essential* to Linked Data -- not optional, and not merely one potential > choice among many. the reason is that the Semantic Web critically relies > on the use of *both* a standard universal identification convention (URIs) > for its vocabulary, *and* a standard universal information model (RDF) for > making statements. > > To understand why a standard universal information model is important, one > must think back to the central goal of the Semantic Web. the goal is to > enable computers to do more useful things for us: to enable them to find, > share, combine and make meaningful use of web data. > http://www.scientificamerican.**com/article.cfm?id=the-**semantic-web<http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-semantic-web> > This means that a client application processing some web data should be > able to follow links in that data to find more data that it can *also* > meaningfully use. the only way that can be achieved is by using a standard > universal information model. otherwise the client application will have no > reliable way to properly interpret that new data. > > For example, suppose the client application dereferences a URI and obtains > a comma-separated-values (CSV) document. unless the client application > knew how to interpret that file, it would not be able to make meaningful > use of that data. it would be stuck at a dead end. but if the document > were expressed in a standard universal information model, then the client > application would at least be able to understand what statements the > document was making. and if the client application did not already > understand the vocabulary -- i.e. the meanings of the URIs -- then it could > recursively, using Linked Data techniques, dereference the URIs to discover > their meanings. > > Why does RDF need to be the standard universal information model? not > because it is perfect, but because *some* standard universal information > model is needed, and that is the one that was chosen, just as URIs were > chosen to be the standard universal identification convention. furthermore, > because RDF is syntax independent, a document does not have to *look* like > RDF in order to be interpreted as RDF. for example, GRDDL allows arbitrary > XML to be interpreted as RDF. The enormous value of JSON-LD is that it > provides a more web-developer-friendly syntax than ever before for a > universal information model. > > why couldn't other sufficiently powerful information models achieve the > same Semantic Web goal just as well, and be used in addition to RDF? > Because that would fragment the web. instead of one web we would have many > webs, each one its own walled garden, and that is not be Semantic Web goal. > without a shared information model, client applications would not be able > to meaningfully combine the data from those walled gardens. > > I do not expect anyone to take my word for this. All I ask is that you > think about it. Because if you do, the conclusion is unavoidable: if > Linked Data is going to support the goal of the Semantic Web (without > re-architecting it), then Linked Data MUST be based on RDF. > > this obviously begs the question: *should* Linked Data support the goal of > the Semantic Web? that certainly was TimBL's intent when he coined the > term and wrote his article about it: > http://www.w3.org/**DesignIssues/LinkedData.html<http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html> > (but I continue to be amazed at how differently different people seem to > understand that article, so I imagine there would still be some who would > disagree even with *that* point.) > > *I* certainly think that Linked Data should support the goal of the > Semantic Web. and I think that JSON-LD -- *because* it will be such a > web-developer-friendly RDF syntax (assuming a few small issues are > resolved, so that it really *is* an RDF syntax) -- will be a big step > forward. > > If the term Linked Data is "hijacked" by a broader population to mean > *any* sort of data that is linked -- not necessarily RDF -- then this will > be a major loss to the Semantic Web community, because it is very hard to > come up with simple ways to communicate the essence of the Semantic Web. > The Linked Data meme has been extremely helpful. If the RDF component is > lost, we will have lost the best meme we have ever had for explaining the > Semantic Web. > Universal does not mean unique. > > David > > >
Received on Monday, 17 June 2013 07:47:25 UTC