Re: Ending the Linked Data debate -- PLEASE VOTE *NOW*!

On 06/13/2013 07:19 PM, David Booth wrote:
> [Sidebar: A term of art is "A word or phrase that has special
> meaning in a particular context". (The Free Dictionary)]
>
> A heated debate has been raging about the accepted meaning
> of the term "Linked Data" in the context of the Semantic
> Web community -- whether or not this term implies the use
> of RDF.  Since this depends on people's perceptions of the
> term's meaning, rather than an official definition, a simple
> poll has been created to settle this debate quantitatively.
> The poll asks:
>
>      In normal usage within the Semantic Web community,
>      does the term "Linked Data" imply the use of RDF?
>
> PLEASE VOTE NOW at
> http://goo.gl/cbyQd
>
> VOTING RULES
> 1. One vote per person.  Persons with multiple email
> addresses are prohibited from voting more than once.
>
> 2. To prevent ballot stuffing, only votes from those who
> have **previously posted a message** on a public W3C email
> list (*before* 13-Jun-2013) will be counted.  The W3C
> email search form will be used to ensure compliance:
> http://goo.gl/aqtGW
>
> 3. To ensure that votes are counted correctly (and to
> detect forged ballots), all votes will be verified and
> listed publicly at
> http://goo.gl/PXhRG
>
> Results of this poll may be viewed at
> http://goo.gl/GMeom
> (NOTE: The "View all responses" link on that page is
> auto-generated and cannot be disabled.  Unfortunately it
> links to the *editable* version of the response list,
> which should not be shared, so please do not request
> it.  The link above at #3 shows the same list in
> read-only mode.)
>
> Thank you,
> David Booth
>
> P.S. Please restrict follow-up discussion about this poll to
> public-lod@w3.org

Hi David,

As others already pointed out, I also don't think that the results of 
this survey will come as a surprise even if we assume for the moment 
that it is sound. However, that should not deter us from creating an 
improved one. IMO, as soon as some context is built into to survey e.g., 
implication of Linked Data within Semantic Web, it pretty much leads to 
a binary answer.

I would propose a different approach to the community:

"Explain Linked Data to me like I'm 5"

Gather the answers, classify etc. The definition that's perceived by the 
community may not necessarily be "this" or "that" regardless of the 
recent discussions.


Aside: Personally I think this discussion is important as long as there 
is a visible outcome for the better. It hits a pet-peeve of mine and 
others. For instance, if we go with the strict SemWeb, RDF and friends 
view of "Linked Data", the public-lod and semantic-web mailing lists are 
practically hijacked with announcements that requests research paper 
submissions to be in PDF. Apparently the community is cool with the idea 
that as long as the calls are made by gatherings with "Semantic Web" or 
"Linked Data" in their title, they can have a go with whatever is 
suitable for them. What this tells me is that, on one hand some 
(majority?) of the SW/LD community loves to side with the most recent 
definition of TimBL's DesignIssues/LinkedData, on another they are 
willing to cut corners and look the other way when it truly comes to 
eating their own dogfood.

So, can anyone explain to me what is the real-world implication of 
having the definition one way or another especially when the SW/LD 
community has a difficulty getting its act together to stick to those 
"guidelines"?

-Sarven