[foaf-protocols] First WebID Teleconference minutes (July 27th 2010)

[Nathan]

Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> Henry Story wrote:
>> In a spirit of compromise - there were perhaps just a few too many 
>> e-mails
>> on this list yesterday so sorry for cutting short a bit harshly then, 
>> I do want to work on my implementations too - I do think it can't harm 
>> to do a minimal explanation of what a graph is ( in terms of diagrams 
>> with arrows) as an introduction. RDF is just the mapping to such a 
>> diagram where
>> the arrows and objects are named with URIs.
>>   
> 
> YES!!
> 
> An hopefully, we can look at EAV as not being an alternative to RDF (or 
> generally perceived RDF/XML), but simply a case of explaining the 
> underlying Graph Model from which RDF's model has been derived, 
> basically a model that hasn't dropped in from outer space.
> 
> As I said, we will arrive at the same place ultimately. The Wikipedia 
> article on EAV is a good enough reference re. the relationship. RDF adds 
> URIs to the basic model, and from there the actual RDF model becomes far 
> less confusing to explain.  RDF didn't invent the triple, it simply made 
> the triple webby.
> 
> Tell the story right and you will engage more people (technical and non 
> technical). Zero opportunity for FUD. Zero possibility of history 
> re-writing power grabs etc..
> 
>> From my experience giving talks around the world, people do understand 
>> graphs very well now, especially due to the social web emphasis on 
>> social graphs, which has nearly become a familiar term. Also when 
>> explained lightly I find people don't have trouble with RDF. It has 
>> lost it's evil aura, and people catch on quickly.
>>   
> 
> Yes, as per comments above. History matters when educating people :-)

concurred