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

On 6/11/13 5:19 PM, David Booth 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 BAD!

I completely misread that !

RDF isn't a defining characteristic of Linked Data at all.

Linked Data is something you produce via RDF.

>
>> 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.

Because that's inaccurate and flawed.

Why isn't Linked Data RDF plus SPARQL? Why don't we insert SPARQL into 
every conversation about Linked Data?

As I keep on telling you, RDF and SPARQL are implementation details. You 
can use them to produce Linked Data, you can use them to materialize the 
essence of TimBL's meme. That's exactly what happened re. DBpedia the 
the Linked Data cloud etc..


>
> 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.

As much as you would like to misrepresent my comments and sentiments, I 
will never let you prevail.

> 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.

Look, keep this conversation civil.

Debate and support your points, you can pull that off without comments 
such as the one above.

RDF != Linked Data. They are not the same thing.

Linked is something you can produce using RDF.

Back to you!

>
> David
>
>
>


-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen