Re: The Battle for Linked Data

Hi Hugh,

On Mar 26, 2012, at 11:49, Hugh Glaser wrote:
> So What is Linked Data?

Only an academic would ask such a question ;)

I don't mean that as tongue-in-cheek as it sounds, but to point out that Linked Data started, grew and evolved as a pragmatic application of technologies to certain practical problems.  In this case, practice led theory.  Perhaps you are correct to attempt to theorize at this point.


> And relatedly, Who Owns the Term "Linked Data"?

OK, or maybe a lawyer...

> (If we used a URI for Linked Data, it might or might not be clearer.)

Many large corporations, such as IBM's Rational Division and Elsevier, are currently trying (and succeeding) to solve enterprise application integration problems using "Linked Data principles". Should they be stopped because they don't use "Linked Data".  Of course not.  Nor should they be asked to use a different term.

Personally, I tend to use "Linked Open Data" when discussing structured data on the Web and "Linked Data" when discussing the use of some (any) subset of Semantic Web techniques, standards or tools to solve some particular problem.  I'm liberal that way.

My point is just that usage of the techniques by various parties (not just two types!) is evolving rapidly.  So rapidly, in fact, that it makes naming and theory quite difficult.

Regards,
Dave

> 
> Of course most people think that "What *I* think is Linked Data is Linked Data".
> And by construction, if it is different it is not Linked Data.
> Kingsley views the stuff people are talking about that does not, for example, conform to a policy that includes Range-14 as "Structured Data" - naming things is important, as we well know, and can serve to separate communities..
> 
> There are clearly quite a few people who would like to relax things, and even go so far as to drop the IR thing completely, but still want to have the Linked Data badge on the resultant Project.
> There are others for whom that is anathema.
> 
> I actually think that what we are watching is the attempt of the Linked Data child to fly the nest from the Semantic Web.
> Can it develop on its own, and possibly have different views to the Semantic Web, or must it always be obedient to the objectives of its parent?
> 
> Often the objectives of Linked Data engineers are very different to the objectives of Semantic Web engineers.
> (A Data Integration technology or a global AI system.)
> So it is not surprising that the technologies they want might be different, and even incompatible.
> 
> If I push the parent/child analogy beyond its limit, I can see the forthcoming TAG meeting as the moment at which the child proposes to reason with the parent to try to reach a compromise.
> The TAG seems to be part of the ownership of the term "Linked Data", because the Linked Data people (whoever they are) so agree at the moment - but this is not a God-given right - I don't think there is any trade- or copy-right on the term.
> A failure to arrive at something that the child finds acceptable can often lead to a complete rift, where the child leaves home entirely and even changes its name.
> 
> And of course, after such a separation, exactly who would be using the term "Linked Data" to badge their activities?
> 
> Like others in this discussion I am typing one-handed, after earlier biting my arm off in preference to entering the Range-14 discussion again.
> But I do think this is an important moment for the Linked Data world.
> 
> Best
> Hugh
> -- 
> Hugh Glaser,  
>             Web and Internet Science
>             Electronics and Computer Science,
>             University of Southampton,
>             Southampton SO17 1BJ
> Work: +44 23 8059 3670, Fax: +44 23 8059 3045
> Mobile: +44 75 9533 4155 , Home: +44 23 8061 5652
> http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~hg/
> 
>

Received on Monday, 26 March 2012 16:03:07 UTC