[foaf-protocols] EAV

Kingsley Idehen kidehen at openlinksw.com
Sat Dec 18 20:16:58 CET 2010


On 12/18/10 1:24 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> On 12/18/10 6:21 AM, Dan Brickley wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 11:28 PM, Kingsley Idehen
>> <kidehen at openlinksw.com>   wrote:
>>
>>>> Perhaps not worth labouring the point - last thing either of us wants
>>>> is more confusion when we seek simple clarity.
>>> Put RDF to one side, it cannot be pitched as being everything. Just as
>>> everything isn't a Resource. We exist in a continuum, lets fit into said
>>> continuum and lots of inclusion induced progress will be the reward.
>> Kingsley, you're not making sense. "Resource" is just RDF's technical
>> term for "thing". You're arguing that all things are not things, now?
> Dan,
>
> I am saying: why have we added a new term where there are other terms
> that people (outside the Semantic Web province) already understand.
>
> So "Resource" is a "Thing" but "Entity" isn't a "Thing" then?
>
> Why "Resource" when "Entity" was already in broad use before the
> Semantic Web Project?
>
> Here is the fundamental problem with "Resource". Pre Web you already had
> "Resources" as a term used to denote physical OS artifacts, basically
> different types of data containers. The Web comes along and adds
> hyperlinks to the mix re. access to these same artifacts across machines
> via HTTP. All fine up until this point, we have 200 OK.
>
> Then along comes access to Data (not the Data Container) where each Data
> Item has an Identifier that resolves to a Representation of its Referent
> (said Data Item).
>
> So, you want to tell me it makes sense for you to say: Data Item ==
> Resource? vs Data Item == Entity or Object with an Identifier that
> resolves (i.e. functions as a Name) to an actual Resource (data
> container style artifact) that bears/carries its Representation (a
> function of a descriptive graph pictorial where Attribute=Value pairs
> coalesce around Identifier of description Subject) ?
>
>>> The RDF narrative is wrong and broken. If this weren't true, then why on
>>> earth does it trigger such hard feelings wherever it shows up?
>> A big part is that this class of technology (open-world, extensible
>> graph data) has built-in frustrations. It is just annoying to work
>> with. Also the RDF tooling environment is not yet what it should be,
>> which brings additional practical frustrations to practitioners.
>> Swapping to new acronyms and buzzphrases will address neither problem.
> Dan, this is about history and continuum, now I know you well enough to
> safely conclude neither are new to you. Thus, let's try to connect of
> key points. I differ with your characterization of buzzwords because its
> (unfortunately, albeit inadvertently) part of the problem. Entities,
> Objects, Data Items aren't buzzwords. They are terms that have been long
> established in the world of Distributed Computing (Distributed Objects,
> Distributed Data Objects etc..) that precedes the Web and the Semantic
> Web Project.
>
> The problem with RDF and the Semantic Web Project is that they have done
> a horrible job of making up terms. These made up terms that dislocate
> RDF and the Semantic Web Project from their broader host technology
> continuum i.e., distributed object technology.
>
> My world view, knowledge, and terminology, comes from a time that
> precedes the WWW explosion. We did work with References, Addresses, Data
> Structures etc.. in these pre WWW times. We just didn't have the
> ingenuity and ubiquity of HTTP at our disposal.
>
> Links:
>
> 1. http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/2010-09/msg00318.html -
> nice discussion that includes commentary on Entities
>

Resources are realm specific artifacts. a Web Resource != a Universal 
Resource . Another reason why Resource overloading is problematic when 
trying to articulate the workings of a Web of Semantically Linked Data. 
I my world view the following trinity is constant: Referent, its 
Identifier, and its Representation (Description oriented Graph 
Pictorial) Container (Document) . I find the following trinity utterly 
incomprehensible: Identifier, Resource, Resource.

In addition to the above, some other links of relevance:

1. http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/9703-web-apps-essay.html -- 
Distributed Objects & The Web by DanC
2. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2009Aug/0000.html -- 
TimBL on the issue of Resource and the "R" in URI .

-- 

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