Comments on: Does Linked Data need RDF ? http://cloudofdata.com/2009/07/does-linked-data-need-rdf/ Linked Data, Cloud Computing, Semantic Web, SaaS, PaaS, more Tue, 08 May 2012 08:23:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: A Question of Semantics « Geeklives 365 http://cloudofdata.com/2009/07/does-linked-data-need-rdf/comment-page-1/#comment-444 A Question of Semantics « Geeklives 365 Tue, 28 Jul 2009 01:08:56 +0000 http://cloudofdata.com/?p=721#comment-444 [...] 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 [...] [...] 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 http://cloudofdata.com/2009/07/does-linked-data-need-rdf/comment-page-1/#comment-442 Greg Boutin Thu, 23 Jul 2009 01:24:53 +0000 http://cloudofdata.com/?p=721#comment-442 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 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: Greg Boutin http://cloudofdata.com/2009/07/does-linked-data-need-rdf/comment-page-1/#comment-640 Greg Boutin Thu, 23 Jul 2009 01:24:00 +0000 http://cloudofdata.com/?p=721#comment-640 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 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 http://cloudofdata.com/2009/07/does-linked-data-need-rdf/comment-page-1/#comment-432 Kingsley Idehen Mon, 20 Jul 2009 23:51:36 +0000 http://cloudofdata.com/?p=721#comment-432 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 :-) 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: Kingsley Idehen http://cloudofdata.com/2009/07/does-linked-data-need-rdf/comment-page-1/#comment-639 Kingsley Idehen Mon, 20 Jul 2009 23:51:00 +0000 http://cloudofdata.com/?p=721#comment-639 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 :-) 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 http://cloudofdata.com/2009/07/does-linked-data-need-rdf/comment-page-1/#comment-431 Ross Bates Mon, 20 Jul 2009 21:18:33 +0000 http://cloudofdata.com/?p=721#comment-431 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 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: Ross Bates http://cloudofdata.com/2009/07/does-linked-data-need-rdf/comment-page-1/#comment-638 Ross Bates Mon, 20 Jul 2009 21:18:00 +0000 http://cloudofdata.com/?p=721#comment-638 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 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 http://cloudofdata.com/2009/07/does-linked-data-need-rdf/comment-page-1/#comment-429 More Linked Data and RDF | Paul Miller - The Cloud of Data Mon, 20 Jul 2009 20:35:29 +0000 http://cloudofdata.com/?p=721#comment-429 [...] 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 [...] [...] 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 http://cloudofdata.com/2009/07/does-linked-data-need-rdf/comment-page-1/#comment-428 Kingsley Idehen Mon, 20 Jul 2009 19:23:40 +0000 http://cloudofdata.com/?p=721#comment-428 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 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: Kingsley Idehen http://cloudofdata.com/2009/07/does-linked-data-need-rdf/comment-page-1/#comment-637 Kingsley Idehen Mon, 20 Jul 2009 19:23:00 +0000 http://cloudofdata.com/?p=721#comment-637 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 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

]]>