is simply hypermedia-based
Linked Data offers everyone a Web-scale, Enterprise-grade mechanism for platform-independent creation, curation, access, and integration of data.
The fundamental steps to creating Linked Data are as follows:
Choose a Name Reference Mechanism — i.e., URIs.
Choose a Data Model with which to Structure your Data — minimally, you need a model which clearly distinguishes
Choose one or more Data Representation Syntaxes (also called Markup Languages or Data Formats) to use when creating Resources with Content based on your chosen Data Model. Some Syntaxes in common use today are HTML+RDFa, N3, Turtle, RDF/XML, TriX, XRDS, GData, and OData; there are many others.
Choose a URI Scheme that facilitates binding Referenced Names to the Resources which will carry your Content -- your Structured Data.
Create Structured Data by using your chosen Name Reference Mechanism, your chosen Data Model, and your chosen Data Representation Syntax, as follows:
You can create Linked Data (hypermedia-based data representations) Resources from or for many things. Examples include: personal profiles, calendars, address books, blogs, photo albums; there are many, many more.
About this entry:
Author: Kingsley Uyi Idehen
Published: 10/14/2010 17:54 GMT-0500
02/15/2011 17:28 GMT-0500
Comment Status: 4 Comments
I wondered during the last time a bit about your utilization of EAV as substitution of SPO. As far as I understand EAV, all values are literals. Hence, it wouldn't really fit to SPO, or? Please, correct, if I'm wrong.
I can fully follow your arguments. However, I only started wondering, when I had looked forward to a (old) reference* (since EAV is an old knowledge representation structure) that is similar to your definition. After a longer google search and inspection of the Wikipedia page of EAV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entity-attribute-value_model), I came to the conclusion, that the value part of EAV is bind to data types (hence literals).
As far as I understand EAV/CR, it is used to define further substructures. SPO is regarding that issue open, or?
I'm still not sure to endorse EAV' == SPO.
*) for quoting
Bob Ferris wrote:
SPO and EAV are both dealing with 3-tuples. Adding URIs to either re. insertion of Reference values (via URIs) is vital to Linked Data. Typed Literals *granularity* is just that, granularity.
More people understand EAV than do SPO.
Starting a story with EAV eventually unveils the power of 3-tuple based propositions + URIs where data is defined and constrained by Logic based Conceptual Schema is really the big picture objective.
<< I'm still not sure to endorse EAV' == SPO. >>
Depends on your audience. If they're are clueless about SPO (which is going to be the norm), then you can take the EAV route.
Bottom line, this isn't about EAV vs SPO. It's just about constructing a coherent narrative that fits into a broader industry innovation continuum. People should be able to learn this stuff by leveraging history etc..
RDF bestowed from outer space re., "The Semantic Web" misnomer has been shown to be too provincial, and ultimately a broken narrative IMHO.
*) for quoting