Print

Print


[ This is so 2015, but I feel like I have to clarify and narrow these
claims, even though they would strengthen my personal stance. A narrower
claim,  that the ability to think and talk about claimed facts about things
in the bibliographic universe, rather than exchanging machine readable
 bibliographic records,  makes it easier to think and talk about the
relationship between  those things, to make additional statements about
them, and to set up procedures and infrastructures  for cooperative work
where incorrect assertions can be corrected ]

On Feb 2, 2017 10:11 AM, "Martynas Jusevičius" <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

"Errant standards"? Do you even know what Linked Data and RDF is?


Knight Errant:  a knight traveling in search of adventures in which to
exhibit military skill, prowess, and generosity (
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/knight–errant )

Standard Errant:  a standard doing likewise?

At the core, RDF provides a generic, domain-agnostic, Web-native data model
with a zero-cost merge. It is future-proof: you are guaranteed to be able
to convert, interlink and merge your (bibliographic) data with any ther RDF
dataset, and publish it on the web.  Neither MARC nor RDBMS nor XML have
these features built-in.


1) The RDF model is roughly equivalent to a relational database model where
all tables a restricted to two columns. The model has several quirks caused
by early infection with XML (curse you, language tags). RDF  graphs are
simply sets of triples, and the metaphor of graphs is not essential to the
interpretation.

2) Merging two RDF graphs may not be zero-cost, formally, because blank
nodes. But more importantly,  merging  two RDF graphs may not be zero-cost
informally, because they may use different vocabularies, or the
vocabularies may have been improperly applied.
Because of the choice of logics used for the standardized semantic web, the
results of merging a second graph aren't allowed to override a conclusion
derivable from the first graph.

Simon