W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > June 2013

Re: Linked Data discussions require better communication

From: Luca Matteis <lmatteis@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 17:45:22 +0200
Message-ID: <CALp38EOouz3Y6Uokxvuz0CW0DU+iuEpLTmcX2x+8pMA_21GrYA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
Cc: "Courtney, Paul K." <Paul_Courtney@dfci.harvard.edu>, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, "public-lod@w3.org" <public-lod@w3.org>
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Melvin Carvalho
<melvincarvalho@gmail.com>wrote:

> Restate/reflect ideas that in other posts that are troubling/puzzling and
> ask for confirmation or clarification.


I am simply confused with the idea brought forward by Kingsley that RDF is
*not* part of the definition of Linked Data. The evidence shows the
contrary: the top sites that define Linked Data, such as Wikipedia,
Linkeddata.org and Tim-BL's meme specifically mention RDF, for example:

"It builds upon standard Web technologies such as HTTP, RDF and URIs" -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linked_data
"connecting pieces of data, information, and knowledge on the Semantic Web
using URIs and RDF." - http://linkeddata.org/

This is *the only thing* that I'm discussing here. Nothing else. The
current *definition* of Linked Data.


> Restate the actual subject and focus of the discussion; the subject line
> just doesn’t always cut it.


Again the subject line is the *definition* of the term Linked Data. More
specifically whether it includes (or should include) RDF.

Do more explication with the awareness that we might be talking about two
> (or more!) related but separate ideas/concepts. Or we could be using the
> same terms but with slightly different definitions.


I want to concentrate on the current definition of the Linked Data term.
Why do the main sites built from the Linked Data community *strictly*
describe RDF as one of the main technologies that enable Linked Data?


> Define the terms inline rather than just linking out. One’s interpretation
> of an external standard or specification could be different from someone
> else’s, so I think it would be good to own it.


I simply think RDF is part of Linked Data's definition, because of the
evidence I have shown above. If this is not the case, we should discuss it
as a community. If we decide that RDF is *not* part of the definition of
Linked Data, we should probably remove it from all the top sites, otherwise
it will create confusion for newcomers.

Also we should make new Linked Data coffee mugs ;-)

Luca
Received on Thursday, 20 June 2013 15:45:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 20 June 2013 15:45:57 UTC