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 17:06:21 +0000
Message-ID: <4B7C220D.5060303@webr3.org>
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
CC: Damian Steer <d.steer@bristol.ac.uk>, Hugh Glaser <hg@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, "public-lod@w3.org" <public-lod@w3.org>
Dan Brickley wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 12:51 PM, Damian Steer <d.steer@bristol.ac.uk> wrote:
>> Historical aside:
>>
>> On 17/02/10 11:20, Hugh Glaser wrote:
>>
>>> More recently I have also badged as Web of Data;
>> See [1], since 1998 :-) It's been used fairly regularly since then, although
>> I'd highlight [2] as a particularly significant use of the term.
>>
>> Damian
>>
>> [1] <http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Semantic.html>
>> [2] <http://www.plasticbag.org/archives/2006/02/my_future_of_web_apps_slides/>
> 
> Yes, any use of the phrase "Web of data" that excludes or sidelines
> work like Tom Coates' here ([2]) would be ... regrettable. There have
> already been unfortuate run-ins in blog land about whether you can do
> 'linked data' without using RDF in some LOD-approved manner. There is
> much much more to 'data' than RDF (or OWL, or triples, or W3C SemWeb).
> The Web's a big place and we have to be inclusive. RDF was originally
> standardised as a metadata system, a mechanism for finding stuff ...
> whether that stuff was photos, videos, HTML pages, excel spreadsheets,
> SQL databases, 3d models. It can also be used to provide summaries or
> normalisation of some of the information held in those data objects
> too. But we shouldn't forget the original use case, nor sideline it.
> Metadata about non-RDF documents is still linked data imho: all of
> those forms of Web information are 'linked data' if we use W3C
> information-linking technology to increase their findability. There's
> more information out there than fits comfortably in triples or quads;
> some of the best information is still in people's heads, after all.
> FOAF was always blurbed as an "experimental linked information
> system"; we should have been clearer that some of that info was in
> triples, some in human-oriented documents, and some ... critically ...
> was still in people's heads. The richness comes from the interplay
> between those three forms of information. But I guess that's why I
> still cling nostalgically to the word 'information' here, rather than
> just 'data'.
> 
> BTW an early and important paper in the 'web of data' line, which
> tried to bring RDF and XML together as components of a larger
> ('Semantic Web') story is http://www.w3.org/1999/04/WebData  ... it
> doesn't use the phrase explicitly (except in the url path maybe) but
> it is clear on the need for an inclusive approach.
> 
> cheers,
> 
> Dan

I'd say you're pretty much living testament to the fact that "some of
the best information is still in people's heads" - thanks for the
valuable history & links, a great example of an aside (which is being
debated over in html land), and to delve OT for a minute - do you have
any papers or even books written on the history of the web / semantic
web / linked data - I've noted several rather good informative posts
like this, from yourself, throughout my travels through the mailing list
archives.

Many Regards,

Nathan
Received on Wednesday, 17 February 2010 17:07:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 31 March 2013 14:24:25 UTC