Comments on: Does Linked Data need RDF ?

By: A Question of Semantics « Geeklives 365

A Question of Semantics « Geeklives 365 — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 01:08:56 +0000

[...] read a few articles through blogs lately regarding Linked Data and the Semantic Web. Ross Bates, Paul Miller, Ian Davis, and Semantics Incorporated have all explored the ideas of Linked Data and Web [...]

By: Greg Boutin

Thu, 23 Jul 2009 01:24:53 +0000

I blogged further about this at http://www.semanticsincorporated.com/2009/07/if-linked-data-is-a-brand-it-has-big-problems-to-address.html

By: Kingsley Idehen

Mon, 20 Jul 2009 23:51:36 +0000

Ross,

RDF is comprised of a model and framework. Of course I accept that my comment my be somewhat revisionist since the initial incarnation was about RDF/XML with the proper partitioning of model and data representations coming much later.

The tweak to RDF messaging for the most part coincides with the “Linked Data” meme. Ditto the emergence of alternative data representation formats for the model such as N3, Turtle etc..

As of today, it is best to look at RDF as being comprised of a model and a plethora or data model representational formats (including the most RDF/JSON addition. The model also honors the dictum you outline above since you can consistently negotiate representations (via HTTP GETs) of the same Entity-Attribute-Value or Subject-Predicate-Object graph no matter what you successfully put into it

By: Ross Bates

Mon, 20 Jul 2009 21:18:33 +0000

What I was trying to say about JSON was that you could use it as both a model and a format, just like RDF + N3. It may be flat, it may be nested, the point is you could basically take a table and denormalize it to the cell level in whatever format/language you’d like. To me what this says is that RDF isn’t so much about the technology as is it a way of doing things.

On a related note, I’ve always thought it was a stretch to call RDF a model, to me a model is something that looks the same no matter what you put into it. These are just thoughts, not trolling. Viva el Web of Data!

@rossbates

By: More Linked Data and RDF | Paul Miller - The Cloud of Data

More Linked Data and RDF | Paul Miller - The Cloud of Data — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 20:35:29 +0000

[...] you to everyone who took the time to share a wide range of views in response to yesterday’s post in its comments, on Twitter, and out on your own blogs. Although reduced to silence throughout the [...]

By: Kingsley Idehen

Mon, 20 Jul 2009 19:23:40 +0000

All,

You need a data model for metadata. Without a data model for Metadata you will not have Linked Data anywhere (including HTTP based networks such as the World Wide Web).

RDF is part Data Model and part Data Representation Formats re. Metadata. It is simply an EAV/CR based data model. Remember, RDF/XML != RDF, so the JSON comparisons or suggestions are non sequitur.

There’s no Linked Data on the Web without a data model that intrinsically accommodates HTTP URIs for identifying Entities (Subjects).

There’s no Linked Data injected into the Web if the DBMS data that’s being plugged into the Web doesn’t accommodate HTTP URIs for record ids, field ids, and field values.

Bottom line, we are simply talking about link granularity re. the Linked Data meme. The lowest layer of link granularity is facilitated by EAV/CR models like RDF since they are scoped to the Datum level (as opposed to Data Container level).

As of this time I know of no other EAV/CR based Data Model that intrinsically accommodates HTTP URIs. Thus, the Linked Data meme and RDF are inextricably linked, and for the right reasons. That said, implementation details like RDF don’t need to be emphasized in the Linked Data meme rules.

Remember, most important point of all re. HTTP URIs: they implicitly bind an Entity (Subject) and negotiated representations of its Metadata via a single HTTP URI.

The powerful HTTP URI feature above has never been delivered, to date, with the degree of platform agnosticism inherent to HTTP.

Kingsley

By: alan-morrison

Mon, 20 Jul 2009 18:22:40 +0000

Good post for discussion, Paul. To amplify what Michael said above: The RDF family provides a metadata umbrella that non-RDF can fit under. It’s possible to avoid religious arguments by allowing alternatives as long as they can be converted to fit under the umbrella. RDF’s advantages as the only real metadata umbrella that exists–and one that allows inferencing of what’s under the umbrella–will mean it will be the lingua franca, but DBMS systems are ubiquitous and other formats will continue to be used as well. The need to accommodate and convert or translate them must be assumed. People who don’t understand the value of a base layer of RDF graphs may suggest a performance bakeoff that won’t get at the real advantages, such as inferencing, that RDF provides.

By: “The recent success…” « Mitigated Frenzy

“The recent success…” « Mitigated Frenzy — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 17:45:06 +0000

[...] recent success…” July 20, 2009 Paul Miller writes: The recent success of the Linked Data meme is long overdue, very welcome, and entirely capable of [...]

By: bruce.darcus.name

Mon, 20 Jul 2009 17:29:38 +0000

I think this is a question of how you want to pick your technical battles, and what mix of social and technological work and infrastructure is most likely to yield the intended result. There’s a real danger that “linked data” could be as empty a phrase as “open” without care.

The microdata in HTML5 discussions suggests to me that the first thing that goes out the window when you accept RDF as optional (or more typically, a more pejorative unneeded overkill) is ironically the feature most important to both RDF and linked data: the URI (microdata allows one to use string or reverse DNS identifiers instead for property names and types).

By: Terry Jones

Mon, 20 Jul 2009 17:28:22 +0000

Hi Paul – interesting article and ongoing discussion.

We should talk soon. Our work is related to all this, though without the emphasis on linking.