Martin,
[SNIP]
As Kingsley said - deceptively simple solutions are cheap in the
beginning but can be pretty costly in the long run.
I meant: "Deceptively Simple" is good. While "Simply Simple" is bad due
to inherent architectural myopia obscured by initial illusion of
cheapness etc..
What made the Web so powerful is that its Architecture is extremely
well-thought underneath the first cover of simplicity.
That's what I meant by: "Deceptively Simple", architectural apex is
narrow (simple) while the base is broad (a pyramid) :-)
Exactly the opposite of "I will use this pragmatic pattern until it
breaks" but instead
That's what I meant by: "Simple Simple", architectural apex is broad
while the base is narrow (think inverted pyramid).
"architectural beauty for eternity".
Yes! That what you get with: "Deceptively Simple" :-)
Kingsley
Just look at the http specs. The fact that you can do a nice 303 is
because someone in the distant past very cleverly designed a protocol
goes well beyond the pragmatic "I have a URL (sic!) and want to fetch
the Web page in HTML (sic!)".
So when being proud of being the "pragmatic guys" keep in mind that
nothing is as powerful in practice as something that is theoretically
consistent.
Best
Martin
Michael Hausenblas wrote:
Martin,
(moving this to LOD public as suggested)
Thanks.
General note: I am quite unhappy with a general movement in parts of the
LOD community to clash with the OWL world even when that is absolutely
unnecessary. It is just a bad engineering practice to break with
existing standards unless you can justify the side-effects. And this
stubborn "i don't care what the OWL specs says" pattern is silly, in
particular if the real motivation of many proponents of this approach is
that they don't want or cannot read the OWL specs.
I don't think it is particular helpful to insult people, to utter
imputations and judge a book by its cover. If we can agree to stop using
such terminology I'm more than happy to continue the discussion.
On the other hand - what is your pain with using RDFa in a way so that
the extracted RDF model is equivalent to the model from an RDF/XML or N3
serialization? Why this absolutely arbitrary "we LOD guys don't like
owl:import ( we don't like OWL anyway, you know?), so we simply omit it"
behavior?
It is just silly to break with established standards just for saving 1 -
2 triples.
Ok, so, again, for the chaps who didn't get the entire story. Martin
champions the use of owl:import (and wants to see it written down as a good
practice?) in linked data.
My take on this is as follows: when one takes the linked data principles and
applies them in practice (esp. referring to #2, here) there are naturally a
dozens implementation choices as the principles simply leave room for
interpretation.
The people here know me from the RDFa TF, from the AWWSW TF and last but not
least from the LOD community as a simple-minded, pragmatic guy, I hope ;)
So, my hunch would be: the market will make the final decision, not a Martin
Hepp and also not a Michael Hausenblas. If people think this is a clever
idea, they will use it when publishing linked data. AFAIK, to date the usage
of owl:import in linked data is close to non-existing (even in pre-LOD times
it seemed to be not very common [1]).
Concluding, I'd propose - respecting the nature of good *practice* - once we
notice a serious usage of owl:import in LOD data, we may want to rehash this
topic.
Cheers,
Michael
[1] http://ebiquity.umbc.edu/blogger/2007/06/15/how-owlimport-is-used/
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
martin hepp
e-business & web science research group
universitaet der bundeswehr muenchen
e-mail: mh...@computer.org
phone: +49-(0)89-6004-4217
fax: +49-(0)89-6004-4620
www: http://www.unibw.de/ebusiness/ (group)
http://www.heppnetz.de/ (personal)
skype: mfhepp
twitter: mfhepp
Check out the GoodRelations vocabulary for E-Commerce on the Web of Data!
========================================================================
Webcast:
http://www.heppnetz.de/projects/goodrelations/webcast/
Talk at the Semantic Technology Conference 2009:
"Semantic Web-based E-Commerce: The GoodRelations Ontology"
http://tinyurl.com/semtech-hepp
Tool for registering your business:
http://www.ebusiness-unibw.org/tools/goodrelations-annotator/
Overview article on Semantic Universe:
http://tinyurl.com/goodrelations-universe
Project page and resources for developers:
http://purl.org/goodrelations/
Tutorial materials:
Tutorial at ESWC 2009: The Web of Data for E-Commerce in One Day: A Hands-on
Introduction to the GoodRelations Ontology, RDFa, and Yahoo! SearchMonkey
http://www.ebusiness-unibw.org/wiki/GoodRelations_Tutorial_ESWC2009
--
Regards,
Kingsley Idehen Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
President & CEO
OpenLink Software Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
