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

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

From: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2012 18:01:02 +0200
Message-ID: <CAE1ny+6X1WWMLub8cNMdb+AaW5zSSibF=cK2fEtUA2hat7Hw5A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
Cc: Ed Summers <ehs@pobox.com>, www-tag@w3.org
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 5:56 PM, Melvin Carvalho
<melvincarvalho@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 3 April 2012 15:04, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 2:26 PM, Ed Summers <ehs@pobox.com> wrote:
>> > On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 7:25 AM, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >> 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 :-)
>> >
>> > Perhaps this is where you were going, but I think it's important to
>> > point out that Facebook and publishers of Open Graph data ignore
>> > httpRange-14 entirely, which is probably why it is working. For
>> > example:
>> >
>> >    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1182345/
>> >
>> > identifies a movie:
>> >
>> >
>> >  https://developers.facebook.com/tools/debug/og/object?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.imdb.com%2Ftitle%2Ftt1182345%2F
>> >
>> > Thanks for your email Harry!
>>
>> Precisely. Indeed, while no-one *forces* you to use 303 redirection,
>> you currently have to use it to count as Linked Data. Which leaves
>> Linked Data to the true believers like Kingsley, while lots of people
>> probably just want to mint RDF data using APIs etc.
>
>
> Harry, you dont have to use 303 to count as linked data.
>
> http://5stardata.info/

I think very few people look at that web-page and many more people
look at the Linked Data tutorial:

http://www4.wiwiss.fu-berlin.de/bizer/pub/linkeddatatutorial/

Perhaps some people have the book, although that is unlikely.

Anyways, my suggestion and analysis stands regardless of how "fuzzy"
one wants to define Linked Data.

   cheers,
       harry

>
> The Web is nothing if not tolerant.
>
> The more stars you collect, the higher your chance of reaching the "sea of
> interoperability".
>
>>
>>
>> For the time being, http://graph.facebook.com/117527568273199
>> illustrates my point (note that its also in JSON), and I want that to
>> *count* as Linked Data. Right now that URI identifies *both* metadata
>> about the movie and the movie itself. If/when Facebook wishes to mint
>> a separate URI for the "metadata about the movie" from 'the movie
>> itself" they should be able to, and then use w3c:describes OR 303
>> redirection to connect the two URIs.
>>
>> As for the fact that might break OWL reasoners and semantics, I don't
>> really care -  as one of the people who has done owl:sameAs reasoning
>> on a large scale, you basically have to re-code everything in special
>> purpose code to make things scalable (regardless of all the hype over
>> decidable reasoning), so "OWL semantics" is kinda meaningless for
>> practical purposes and as we have also shown, owl:sameAs is used in
>> very odd contexts beyond strict identity all over the place.
>>
>> I'm happy to talk philosophy (and have several papers about this) in
>> an academic context, but from an engineering point of view I'd just
>> like Linked Data to work. While Linked Data cloud is kinda huge, its
>> not nearly as big as it *could* be if we did two things 1) replaced
>> RDF/XML with a JSON format and 2) gave people easier options than 303
>> redirections. I think those are the two major deployment barriers.
>>
>>   cheers,
>>         harry
>>
>>
>> >
>> > //Ed
>> >
>>
>
Received on Tuesday, 3 April 2012 16:01:38 UTC

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