Re: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment

On 6/9/13 5:23 PM, David Booth wrote:
> On 06/08/2013 04:27 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>> On 6/8/13 2:27 PM, David Booth wrote:
>>> Yes. We are arguing about the attempt to re-defined the notion of
>>> Linked Data to not be based on RDF.
>> You can seriously make that inaccurate claim after reading the original
>> meme
>> <http://web.archive.org/web/20061201121454/http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html> 
>>
>> ?
>
> Please re-read that document *entirely* -- not selectively.  As I 
> already pointed out:
> [[
> > Because unless one were intentionally exercising selective
> > understanding, I do not see how anyone could honestly
> > misread it so badly as to not realize that it is specifically
> > talking about RDF and the Semantic Web, making reference to
> > the way the HTML-based web works, and showing that the same
> > principles of linking and dereferencing are needed for RDF
> > and the Semantic Web.  The very first paragraph says:
> > [[
> > The Semantic Web isn't just about putting data on the web. It
> > is about making links, so that a person or machine can explore
> > the web of data.  With linked data, when you have some of it,
> > you can find other, related, data.
> > ]]
> >
> > And the second paragraph explicitly says: "for data they
> > links  between arbitrary things described by RDF".  I don't
> > know how he could have said it more clearly.
> >
> > Claiming that that document in any way supports the notion
> > that Linked Data is not based on RDF would be disingenuous
> > to the point of being fraudulent.
> ]]
>
>>
>> Linked Data took off without an RDF specificity.
>
> That is complete nonsense.

I guess when we were setting up DBpedia we didn't have a clue about what 
we were doing. You selectively forget that then (and now) many conflated 
RDF and RDF/XML.

Look, people just clicked on links and received pages that described the 
entities denoted by the links. That's it. We didn't spend time 
explaining RDF or RDF/XML, we spent most of our time explaining the 
nuances associated with using HTTP URI to unambiguously denote the items 
that were subjects of descriptions.

Was RDF used to make the Linked Data deployed by DBpedia? Of course!

Was SPARQL used to aid Linked Data deployment in line with TimBL's 
original meme? Of course!

None of that means that Linked Data and RDF are the same thing.

None of that means that Linked Data is a subset of RDF.

None of that means that the there is no Linked Data without RDF.

Do you seriously believe that folks can't craft Linked Data resources 
modulo any knowledge of RDF? If you believe that, then you are basically 
inaccurately claiming that RDF is the progenitor of Linked Data.

> You seem to be talking about the generic concept of linking 
> information.  That is not what we are discussing here.  We are talking 
> about Linked Data in the sense that TimBL defined the term.
>
>>
>> Linked Data is something you can produce, in highly useful form, via
>> RDF. That doesn't make it a subset of RDF. Sorry, but that's utter
>> nonsense!
>
> Again, you seem to be talking about the generic concept of linking 
> information.  That is not what we are discussing here.

Again, you are simply being selective, the most futile way.

You can craft structured data that leverages HTTP URIs (i.e., Hyperdata) 
using basic knowledge of the age-old entity relationship model as 
outlined by Peter Chen circa 1976. The entity relationship model in 
question is basically what RDF enhances by making the semantics of 
Relations explicit and machine comprehensible. That's it!

I can't believe we are burning time on this matter. Why is it all or 
nothing with you? What's so wrong with RDF being described properly 
i.e., a framework that can be used to produce Linked Data endowed with 
explicit (rather than implicit) entity relationship semantics?

You are so irked by this simplicity of RDF based Linked Data that you 
would actually refer to it as fraudulent, and then if I respond to you 
in kind you make a quantum leap to libel.

Remember, those who live in glass houses don't throw stones. Thus, you 
can keep the tenure of a debate civil, or if you choose to cross the 
line (re your accusations and framing) then be ready to receive as good 
as you dish out.

Links:

1. http://bit.ly/YTdz3N -- Peter Chen's dissertation circa. 1976

Kingsley


>
> David
>
>
>
>


-- 

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