W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > April 2012

Re: A proposal involving my original reason for commenting on httpRange-14

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2012 07:25:51 -0400
Message-ID: <4F798CBF.2050808@openlinksw.com>
To: www-tag@w3.org
On 4/2/12 4:55 AM, Harry Halpin wrote:
> First, to be honest - I've been so busy with work that I have not had
> the time to read the 100+ emails on the topic in the last few days, or
> the associated documentation. But given the TAG is meeting in a few
> minutes over this subject I think...
>
> I just want to clarify one thing - I'm not expecting perfect
> philosophical clarity from the TAG, but to solve a mundane engineering
> problem. The required use of 303 HTTP Redirection for Linked Data
> simply raises the barrier of deployment too high and causes excessive
> redirects. While the Linked Data Cloud is impressive, it is only the
> first step. I want the ability to simply upload a RDF file to a
> website, add some links, and call that "linked data". Using 303
> redirection is simply too hard and out of the ability of many people,
> particularly those not using specialized Linked Data Software. Lastly,
> anything done on the level of HTTP codes *should* be possible to do
> via a RDF statement in a RDF file itself. There should be no "HTTP
> Magic".
>
> My proposal has two parts:
>
> First, I suggest we add a "DescribedBy" RDF statement and its inverse
> "Describes". "Describes" allows one to state that one's URI in an
> uploaded RDF file describes (is "metadata about") another URI, and
> vice versa for "DescribedBy". This can also be done by a Link Header,
> but I would think the Link Header would have the same issues as 303.
>
> Second, I suggest that we *not* require the use of 303 or any
> "DescribedBy/Describes" RDF assertion (or even HTTP Link Header). The
> reason is that separating the URI of a "thing-of-itself" from the URI
> of "data-about-the-thing" is simply *not* necessary for all use-cases.
> It can be necessary and useful though, which is why I suggest we give
> "semantically equivalent" options of using 303, a Link Header, and a
> RDF statement.
>
> I'd suggest one way out is also to punt this problem to the Linked
> Data-ish REST-ish WG. However, a quick and clear - even if only
> tentative - answer from TAG  makes sense.
>
>       cheers,
>            harry
>
>
Harry,

I would like to just upload a CVS to a location and automagically enjoy 
the virtues of an RDBMS. It just won't happen without technology that 
understands what that means. The same applies to a chunk of data seeking 
to exploit intensional aspects of RDBMS technology, which is ultimately 
what RDF is about.

We cannot turn "deceptively simple" into "simply simple" because some 
products (e.g. Apache) are unable to deliver a high level end-user 
experience without exposing challenges.

What could happen is that we veer more along the lines of the 5-star 
Linked Data system modulo any RDF specificity. Net effect, everyone can 
publish structured data that links to other structured data since the 
star system can handle link fidelity re. actual data representation 
granularity etc..

303 hasn't stopped facebook adding 850 million+ Linked Data profiles to 
the Web. We still talk about Linked Data as though its just starting 
when in fact its already reached critical mass etc.. DBpedia, LOD Cloud 
etc.. combined with Facebook and Schema.org == way beyond critical mass :-)


-- 

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 Monday, 2 April 2012 11:26:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:44 UTC