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

Kingsley Idehen kidehen at openlinksw.com
Tue Aug 3 16:38:30 CEST 2010


Sarven Capadisli wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-08-03 at 10:41 +0100, Nathan wrote:
>   
>> Before I go mixing up and conflating what I'm saying - my preferred 
>> approach would be to simply say 'MUST be machine readable'...'see the 
>> section on serializations/formats' then use RDFa examples through the 
>> primer with turtle/n3 for clarity in certain bits.
>>     
>
> +1
>   
Ditto.
> I think emphasising RDFa examples would at least accomplish the
> following:
>
> * Show something that they are perhaps more familiar with i.e., (X)HTML
> and let them follow up on RDF if they need to.
>   

Yes.

But again, what do you mean by "RDF" ? This is the inherent problem with 
"RDF" do you mean data representation formats or data model? Everyone 
repeats the same mistake which is the root of its fundamental problems 
when *clarity* is required.

I suspect you really mean: RDF/XML. In the purest sense you mean one of: 
RDF/XML, RDFa, NTriples, Turtle, N3, TriX, TriG, JSON-* etc.. re. 
formats associated with the RDF Data Model.
> * It will show that machine readable or RDF is not all about RDF/XML.
>   
Yes, but you are conflating matters already by presenting HTML+RDFa and 
RDF as being distinct. HTML+RDFa is just one of several data 
representation formats associated with the RDF data model.

> Hence, it will tone down that misconception, and let the developers go
> ahead with their choice of serialization.
>   

Eventually, when articulated with clarity.
> * And obviously because it is both machine and human readable (in a
> sense that the data is visible on a Web page).
>   

Yes, the point I've been making repeatedly without overloading "RDF" :-)
> Using turtle/n3 in parts would give them other exit points and not
> misinterpret WebID as MUST be in RDFa.
>   

Will show other data representation formats associated with the core 
data model plux associated semantics of the actual WebID protocol.

I agree with your goal conceptually, but we have to be clear about "RDF".

As you can see there is a reason why I preoccupy myself with this "RDF" 
matter. We can't be loose about it, since this has been the historic 
issue that ultimately makes "RDF" borderline unexplainable in a 
consistent manner.

> -Sarven
>
>
>   


-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	      
President & CEO 
OpenLink Software     
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen 







More information about the foaf-protocols mailing list