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

Re: Terminology when talking about Linked Data

From: Juan Sequeda <juanfederico@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 08:22:23 -0600
Message-ID: <f914914c1002180622r47c1ac3ey5cb83153269cf6bb@mail.gmail.com>
To: nathan@webr3.org
Cc: Mike Bergman <mike@mkbergman.com>, Peter Ansell <ansell.peter@gmail.com>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
Nathan,

great to know what are the reactions you get when talking about linked data.
I get the same too.

I presented this intro to linked data slides during the Consuming Linked
Data tutorial at ISWC2009 (and will also be presenting at WWW2010) :
http://www.slideshare.net/juansequeda/introduction-to-linked-data-2341398

I have reused them several times at other talks. After the talks, most
people get an AHA moment.

Juan Sequeda
+1-575-SEQ-UEDA
www.juansequeda.com


On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 8:18 PM, Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> wrote:

> Mike Bergman wrote:
> > Hi Nathan,
> >
> > Though I assume not universally shared:
> >
> > On 2/16/2010 7:32 PM, Nathan wrote:
> >> Peter Ansell wrote:
> >>> Hi Nathan,
> >>>
> >>> On 17 February 2010 11:18, Nathan<nathan@webr3.org>  wrote:
> >>>> Hi All,
> >>>>
> >>>> Other than the obvious - Linking Open Data = The name of W3C Community
> >>>> Project - I'm wondering which terminology to use where when talking
> >>>> about (what I'll term "Linked Data" for now).
> >>>>
> >>>> To me, "Linked Data" represents the<uri>  <uri>  <uri>  triples; the
> >>>> thing
> >>>> at the core of it, which can be used behind the firewall in a "silo"
> >>>> with nothing open about it.
> >>>>
> >>>> So if I then term "Linked Open Data" as "Linked Data" which has been
> >>>> published properly, then what do I use to refer to the tech-stack and
> >>>> principals as a whole?
> >>>
> >>> If it is published internally to an organisation, it may still be
> >>> Linked Data as the URI's may be resolvable internally by all people
> >>> who have any need to see the information. It may violate privacy laws
> >>> for example for the information to be publically available.
> >>>
> >>> I wouldn't so much refer to it as "properly" published, as
> >>> "publically" published.
> >
> > Linked data is a set of best practices for publishing and deploying
> > instance and class data using the RDF data model. Two of the best
> > practices are to name the data objects using uniform resource
> > identifiers (URIs), and to expose the data for access via the HTTP
> > protocol. Both of these practices enable the Web to become a distributed
> > database, which also means that Web architectures can also be readily
> > employed.
> >
> > It is not an end in itself, a manifesto for "open data", or a substitute
> > for the semantic Web.  It is a useful and recommended practice
> > (technique), but nothing more [1]. ;)
> >
> > Mike
> >
> > [1] http://structureddynamics.com/linked_data.html
>
> would agree; so far all the responses have been different ways of saying
> what "linked data" is; which i agree with wholeheartedly; but further
> down the in-line comments you'll find the specific problem I'm facing.
>
> >>> What is the context in which you need to make the distinction?
> >>>
> >>
> >> The context is purely in discussion format; when I'm talking about
> >> "Linked Data" - if I first explain it to mean "linked data"; then talk
> >> about it being made public as "linked open data" (leaving the
> >> private/public what to publish bit out of it) then to what do I refer to
> >> the overall tech-stack as? everything that comes with it eg:
> >>
> >>   - Linked Data, RDF, SPARQL, REST, Quad-Stores, REST, Ontologies, OWL2,
> >> EAV/CR, FOAF+SSL, HTTP, URIs etc
> >>
> >> A name for the above as a whole.
> >>
>
> Two people thus far have said "semantic web" with some extra words;
> here's the exact problem I'm facing - linked data is what it is, easily
> explained. But the "Semantic Web (enabling) technologies" (which was
> suggested to me off-list) brings up the following problems.
>
> when I refer to "semantic web" 50% of people think I mean HTML5 or H1-H6
> tags, and the other 50% think I mean the stuff returned from open
> calais. (strangely!)
>
> and last time I said "linked open data"; well here's the response I
> received:
>
> "The whole thing about mash-ups/linked data is odd. No one is
> generating any data. Just reusing/repackaging/rebranding. In hardware
> terms, they are VARs. And whilst VARs may be cheaper, they aren't
> often better them OEMs."
>
> other responses to the mention of the term "linked open data" were all
> along the lines of "it lets you get information from lots of places" aka
> web services aka I don't need linked open data and the semantic web
> technologies because I work internally within a silo which only calls on
> SOAP web service from the supplier.
>
> At no point have I had a term I could use to which people went - "ahh
> what's that, do tell me more"
>
> Hope that helps explain where I'm coming from, and to clarify further
> this is for use when talking to general web developers and designers -
> any mention of this to plumbers and window cleaners I find ends up in
> them looking at me like I just broke wind (as Billy Connolly would say).
>
> Regards & thanks thus far!
>
> Nathan
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 18 February 2010 14:22:56 UTC

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