W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > February 2010

Re: Terminology when talking about Linked Data

From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 16:39:37 +0000
Message-ID: <4B7C1BC9.7020101@webr3.org>
To: Hugh Glaser <hg@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
CC: Mike Bergman <mike@mkbergman.com>, Peter Ansell <ansell.peter@gmail.com>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
Hugh Glaser wrote:
> Wow Nathan, that's an interesting set of reactions - we could go off and
> discuss them, but I will give my 3 cents on the original question.
> I too have difficulty with customers on the "Open" word.
> Open can mean a few things, and some of the posters here seem to interpret
> it to mean open standards.
> My interpretation has been that the data is open; as it says at the start of
> the project page [1]:
> "The Open Data Movement aims at making data freely available to everyone ...
> The goal of the W3C SWEO Linking Open Data community project is to extend
> the Web with a data commons by publishing various open data sets as RDF on
> the Web and by setting RDF links between data items from different data
> sources."
> So it is Linking Open Data, not something like Open Linked Data.
> So personally I have used Linked Data quite a lot, sometimes as Linked Data
> Technologies.
> I take it to mean the same thing as Linking Open Data, but where the data is
> not necessarily open - this is important for a customer that wants to use
> the (whole) technology stack, but does not want to make their data open.
> "Open" can really freak people out
> I avoid Semantic Web, as that is often received as primarily doing AI.
> More recently I have also badged as Web of Data; don't know if Michael
> started it, but you do see it around. Sort of a good capture of the ideas.
> I also talk about an application using the Unbounded Web of Data, if it
> actually goes out and fetches RDF on finding links.
> Finally, if I am pushed to use Semantic Web (ie that is what they come
> with), I always say I work in Semantic Web Technologies.
> As someone who works on the software, it can be very useful to append
> technologies to whatever phrase I use:- otherwise the assumption is that the
> work is primarily concerned with building ontologies or transforming
> datasets, rather than infrastructure development.
> I don't think that either Linked Data (Technologies) or Web of Data
> addresses your problems that customers think they already have it in Web
> Services; I usually talk about moving from point to point vocabularies
> towards widely agreed vocabularies at that stage, and through to unbounded.
> Best
> Hugh
> [1] 
> http://esw.w3.org/topic/SweoIG/TaskForces/CommunityProjects/LinkingOpenData#
> head-277d7f68544ce1a9e252f5c0080b6402cd983a49
> [2] http://www.webofdata.info/
> [3] http://webofdata.wordpress.com/

Ahh ty, I can see Web of Data, and Linked Data Technologies both being
thrown in to a conversation when discussing Linked Data in broad
strokes. Also it had slipped my mind till now but there's always the
Giant Global Graph reference too - Web of Data seems to set the tone and
paint the ideal mental picture for further communications though (ie
makes sense to me)!

Received on Wednesday, 17 February 2010 16:40:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:16:03 UTC