On 6/20/13 12:50 PM, Stephane Fellah wrote:
Hi,I agree with Luca's viewpoint. The W3C standard RDF model (a.k.a triple model) is one of most fundamental piece of the technology stack defining Linked Data (along with URIs and HTTP).
I am not disputing that point.Here's what in dispute, and the topic of debate to me: the misconception that you MUST know anything about RDF en route to creating and publishing Linked Data. RDF is an optional implementation detail with a particular outcome in mind i.e., the ability for humans and machines to understand the entity relationship semantics that constitute the Linked Data.
I think it is important to make understand the community that Linked Data can be serialized into different representations (Turtle, RDF/XML, JSON-LD, N3, NTriples, TrigG, and any future formats) , as long as they are isomorphic to RDF model (meaning data can be converted to a set of triples and identifiers are based on URIs).
I really don't believe that I am disputing this point. Neither do I believe the point (above) is new to anyone on this list.
If the data are NOT convertible to RDF model, I do not consider it as Linked Data.
And that assertion is inaccurate. It is also indefensible. The World Wide Web as it already exists is full of Linked Data for which RDF processors may or may not exist. It functions, humans and programs understand the "LinksTo" relation etc.. That's why it works and scales the way it does.
Guess what, even though the World Wide Web is dominated by HTML content, it was bootstrapped on the back of a draconian mandate that everything MUST be interpretable as HTML.
Ironically, DBpedia most powerful deliverable was the use of HTML to expose the concept of Linked Data. We stuck RDF/XML and other formats in the footer pages of said documents.
To make the system works, you need some set of standards on which everyone agree: HTTP, URIs, RDF are fundamental to Linked Data.
URIs and web-liked structured data representation are fundamental to Linked Data.
RDF is fundamental to Blogic.
Saying we do not need RDF model for Linked Data is like saying we do not need URL or HTTP for the web of documents.
Again, here is what I am saying: You don't need to know anything about RDF to create and publish Linked Data. Please read my words, don't react to them.
Kingsley
Sincerely Stephane FellahOn Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 11:45 AM, Luca Matteis <lmatt...@gmail.com <mailto:lmatt...@gmail.com>> wrote:On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarva...@gmail.com <mailto:melvincarva...@gmail.com>> wrote: # Restate/reflect ideas that in other posts that are troubling/puzzling and ask for confirmation or clarification. I am simply confused with the idea brought forward by Kingsley that RDF is *not* part of the definition of Linked Data. The evidence shows the contrary: the top sites that define Linked Data, such as Wikipedia, Linkeddata.org and Tim-BL's meme specifically mention RDF, for example: "It builds upon standard Web technologies such as HTTP, RDF and URIs" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linked_data "connecting pieces of data, information, and knowledge on the Semantic Web using URIs and RDF." - http://linkeddata.org/ This is *the only thing* that I'm discussing here. Nothing else. The current *definition* of Linked Data. # Restate the actual subject and focus of the discussion; the subject line just doesn’t always cut it. Again the subject line is the *definition* of the term Linked Data. More specifically whether it includes (or should include) RDF. # Do more explication with the awareness that we might be talking about two (or more!) related but separate ideas/concepts. Or we could be using the same terms but with slightly different definitions. I want to concentrate on the current definition of the Linked Data term. Why do the main sites built from the Linked Data community *strictly* describe RDF as one of the main technologies that enable Linked Data? # Define the terms inline rather than just linking out. One’s interpretation of an external standard or specification could be different from someone else’s, so I think it would be good to own it. I simply think RDF is part of Linked Data's definition, because of the evidence I have shown above. If this is not the case, we should discuss it as a community. If we decide that RDF is *not* part of the definition of Linked Data, we should probably remove it from all the top sites, otherwise it will create confusion for newcomers. Also we should make new Linked Data coffee mugs ;-) Luca
-- 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
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
