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

Re: Terminology when talking about Linked Data

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 17:51:59 -0500
Message-ID: <4B7C730F.1000101@openlinksw.com>
To: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
CC: Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
Danny Ayers wrote:
> For a definition of Linked Data I'd suggest anything that conforms to
> timbl's Linked Data expectations:
>    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.
> While Tim only lists RDF & SPARQL as the standards, pragmatically I
> reckon there's a bit of leeway here, e.g. a HTML document or Atom feed
> is likely to contain links and data that can be interpreted as RDF -
> in fact *any* hyperlink could be seen as an RDF statement (maybe
> <docA> dc:relation <docB>), so depending on the context a looser
> definition of linked data as "linky stuff" doesn't seem unreasonable.
> Cheers,
> Danny.

Yes, and basically watch the Microsoft OData [1] space, it will 
basically accentuate your point re. other data representations for HTTP 
based Linked Data using the baseline Entity-Attribute-Value graph model 
via extensions to the Atom+Feed format. Basically, they are picking up 
where GData stopped etc..


1. http://www.odata.org/



Kingsley Idehen	      
President & CEO 
OpenLink Software     
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen 
Received on Wednesday, 17 February 2010 22:52:26 UTC

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