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

On 06/11/2013 04:57 PM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
> On 11 June 2013 22:51, David Booth <david@dbooth.org
> <mailto:david@dbooth.org>> wrote:
[ . . . ]
>     The stars are to encourage people *toward* Linked Open Data -- both
>     Linked Data and fully Open Data.  The stars do *not* indicate that
>     there is such a thing as "one-star Linked Data" or "four-star Linked
>     Data". Think about it.  Would it make any sense to call a PDF
>     document "Linked Data" just because it is on the web with an open
>     license?  Of course not.  But it would qualify for one star on the
>     path *toward* Linked Open Data.
>
>
> Why would a PDF not qualify as linked data?

Because PDF is not RDF, and Linked Data is based on RDF.  You could call 
it Linked Stuff or hyperdata or something else like that *if* it 
contains links.  But "Linked Data" has a well-established meaning in the 
community -- in spite of Kingsley's claims to the contrary -- and that 
meaning includes being based on RDF:
http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html

 > PDFs can have linked in
> them.  The format is a pain, that's why they only get 1 star.

I was not saying that PDFs cannot have links in them.  I was pointing 
out that the stars on the Linked Open Data coffee cup do *not* indicate 
that there is such a thing as "one-star Linked Data" or "four-star 
Linked Data".  Think about it. Suppose you have a PDF document **that 
has no links** and you put it on the web under an open license.  Would 
it make any sense to call it "Linked Data" just because it is on the web 
with an open license (thus fulfilling the requirements of the first 
star)?  Of course not.  But it would qualify for one star on the path 
*toward* Linked Open Data.

David

Received on Wednesday, 12 June 2013 02:19:09 UTC