Re: Proof: Linked Data does not require RDF

On 6/18/13 1:01 AM, David Booth wrote:
> On 06/18/2013 12:05 AM, ProjectParadigm-ICT-Program wrote:
>> The debate about whether linked data requires RDF is actually a typical
>> example of a wrong formulation in the applicable logic formats in
>> reasoning resulting from the imperfection of natural language.
>>
>> The formal definition of the semantic web and its component layers and
>> constituent  tools like RDF is but one way of linking data.
>
> That completely misses the point of this debate.  The debate is not 
> about whether there are other ways of linking data.  It is about the 
> meaning of the term "Linked Data" **as a term of art**. It is often 
> capitalized as Linked Data to emphasize that it has special meaning 
> (as a term of art) beyond just "data that is linked".
>
> David

That's inaccurate. I use the phrase Linked Data a lot. Yes, I do it with 
special meaning in mind, but that wasn't (or isn't) about RDF. That's 
all about the fundamental principles of web-like structured data 
representation as outlined in TimBL's original meme. I (and others ) do 
know how to add RDF to the mix when communicating this way i.e., RDF 
based Linked Data.

Now please don't tell me that Linked Data is a W3C "term of art" please 
don't go there.
>
>
>
>
>


-- 

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