Re: Linked Stuff [was Re: RDF's challenge]

Nice message, David.
Yes, Luca, http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html is where we should look to understand what is now meant by Linked Data.
http://5stardata.info/ is nice, but I would not sign up to it (just because the domain 5stardata.info has been registered!? - interesting provenance) - it would need a lot more discussion before I agree that it captured the Linked Data term as well as http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html

This is a really important discussion - I am hoping their will actually be an outcome so that I can decide whether the LOD list is somewhere I want to stay subscribed.
If Linked Data does not mean RDF, I'm out of here and will look for another list, or just stay with SemWeb.
Alternatively, people who think otherwise can start a Linked Stuff initiative and list.
It is a true/false question for me.

There you go.
I'm off to http://www.downloadfestival.co.uk/line-up/all tomorrow, so look forward to seeing the outcome next week :-)
Best
Hugh

On 11 Jun 2013, at 22:19, David Booth <david@dbooth.org> wrote:

> On 06/11/2013 02:15 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>> On 6/11/13 1:59 PM, David Booth wrote:
> [ . . . ]
>>> But RDF *is* one of Linked Data's defining characteristics, regardless
>>> of whether people outside the RDF community understand that.  (And it
>>> seems to me that if they don't understand that, then we should help
>>> them to understand that, rather than perpetuating their
>>> misunderstanding.)
>> 
>> Of course its one of the defining characteristics.
> 
> Thank you.
> 
>> My point is that it
>> isn't the most important characteristic when speaking to folks outside
>> the RDF community when the subject matter is Linked Data.
>> 
>> This is the crux of the matter re. our disagreement. I don't see a need
>> to inject RDF into my conversations about Linked Data when my target
>> audience isn't interested in RDF or overtly suffers from R-D-F reflux.
> 
> Then use a different term!  Call it "Linked Stuff", or "Hyperdata", or "Linked Information", or something else that does not already have a well-established meaning that *includes* being based on RDF.
> 
> Look, it is fine with me to talk about how "Linked Data" might have been defined differently, and how advantageous you think that would have been in gaining acceptance.  And it is also fine with me to *propose* that the term be re-defined to decouple it from RDF.   But it is *not* okay to state or imply that your proposed re-definition of the term is the *real* definition, i.e., that it reflects the established meaning of the term.  When you do that it sounds like *deliberate* misrepresentation of the truth -- i.e., lying -- and that's when you get people like me objecting so strenuously.
> 
> David
>

Received on Tuesday, 11 June 2013 22:06:44 UTC