incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paolo Castagna <>
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL] Apache Linda
Date Sun, 18 Nov 2012 09:45:18 GMT
Hi Ted,
in addition to the comments and links from Sebastian, I want to add 
something myself.

On 17/11/12 22:49, Ted Dunning wrote:
> Frankly, the phrase "linked data" is also so generic as to be essentially
> meaningless outside your community.  There are many, many uses of this
> phrase in computer science that mean something completely different from
> what you guys seem to mean.

Where else is the phrase "linked data" used with a different meaning?

What 'those guys' seem to mean is well described in the Linked Data 
Wikipedia page:

Please, notice there isn't a disambiguation page. :-)

The Wikipedia page in itself is not a primary source of information, 
however it refers and link to the primary sources regarding 'linked data'.

> It took me quite a bit of reading to figure out what you were talking
> about.  At the very least, you need to look at your supporting materials
> with a naive eye so that you can avoid the confusion that your name and
> terminology are likely to cause.

The above wiki page seems pretty short and clear to me.

Is there anything  in your opinion which isn't clear and should be 
better explained?

The phrase "linked data" is composed by two words and the common 
definition of 'linked' (in particular if referred to the Web) and 'data' 
applies here unchanged. If you think at the Web as is big 'library' of 
linked 'documents', can we do the same also for data, instead of 
documents? How? This is what 'linked data' is all about and what it is 
trying to achieve: a Web of data.

Now, we could discuss (elsewhere) on what's the best way to achieve 
that, but here is out of scope.

> Having a project name that memorializes a phrase that nobody is likely to
> understand without (lots of) supporting material and which is used by other
> projects in roughly the same domain is problematic.

I disagree.

The 4 principles are very clear and simple:

  1. Use URIs as names for things
  2. Use HTTP URIs so that people can look up those names.
  3. When someone looks up a URI, provide useful information, using the 
standards (RDF*, SPARQL)
  4. Include links to other URIs. so that they can discover more things.

We could debate indefinitely on the "using the standards ..." part, but 
should we do it here?

What's isn't clear to you from the four principles above?

You already know what a URI, HTTP URIs, links are. Isn't it? :-)
Now, I could have sympathy with you if you point your finger at RDF and 
SPARQL, but, once again, the Wikipedia pages of these two W3C 
Recommendations are quite short and clear... and if you want you can 
always refer to the W3C Recommendations (those are your primary sources 
of information in this case).

... and if you still need more info or want to put those things into 
practice, come on the jena-user mailing list and we will help you out. :-)

> My feeling is that I would be -0 on the name meaning that I think that it
> isn't good, but I wouldn't stand in the way by vetoing it.  You guys seem
> pretty attached to your terminology regardless of the merits and it doesn't
> seem a big enough issue to be worth causing friction over it.

I conclude with pointing to a poing of the Apache philosophy which says: 
"faithful implementation of standards":

IMHO two of the places to look for these 'standards' in relation to the 
Web are IETF ( (which, by the way, do not produce 
standards but RFC) and the W3C ( (which, by the way, 
do not produce standards but Recommendations). Both, although not 
perfect, have great and open as well as transparent processes and I am 
grateful they exists (as they have been and are fundamental to Internet 
and the Web and their evolution).

The Apache Software Foundation often provides reference implementations 
to these RFCs and Recommendations and I am grateful to ASF to put those 
into practice and in the hands of thousands of developers (including me 

I disagree with you also on your "regardless of the merits", but I am 
unsure if this is is scope of this thread, if it is. I am happy to 
discuss further if you are interested.

> You should be aware, however, that with these defects, it seems very
> unlikely to me that Apache would be able to help with trademark and name
> conflict issues.  That may not seem like a big deal now, but if your
> project really does get going and then somebody tries to take over your
> community with a nearly identically named product, it will definitely feel
> like a big deal.  Take a look at what happens with Open Office all the time.

Regarding the name, I have no better suggestion than dropping the 'n'?
Linda --> Lida (but I have not done much research to see if that has 
problems or not).


> On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 2:12 PM, Sebastian Schaffert <
>> wrote:
>> I agree that "Linda" is a very generic name and as such there are already
>> several projects out there with this name. On the other hand, we chose
>> "Linda" as an acronym for "Linked Data" in order to increase
>> recognizability especially in the domain we are targeting. For our
>> community, we think it would be quite easy to identify "Apache Linda" with
>> the Linked Data Platform and not with a blackboard system or a methodology
>> for parallel execution. A more artificial name would probably have a harder
>> time establishing a brand (but of course the project is good enough to
>> manage ;-) ).
>> In case the Incubator PMC still recommends to rename the project, I agree
>> we should do it BEFORE starting up the project. We will discuss options for
>> renaming on Monday (European Time) and come up with suggestions.

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message