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 18:49:01 +0200
Message-ID: <CALp38EMh6CN1k4xOjkkhRTZ-j1Y6TOOrA2Z-r+CD_rLJmG3zAg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Cc: Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
Kingsley, nothing you just said in reply to my statement has to do with the
*definition* of Linked Data, which is what I was discussing.

It's not really productive to "quote" people's statements, and answer with
something entirely unrelated.

I understand what RDF is and what it allows you to do (the two points you
made), but going back to the definition, why do top sites mention
specifically RDF when describing Linked Data?


On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 6:27 PM, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>wrote:

>  On 6/20/13 11:45 AM, Luca Matteis wrote:
>
> 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.
>
>
> Here's what I am saying, again:
>
> 1. You can create and publish web-like structured data without any
> knowledge of RDF .
>
> 2. You can create and publish web-like data that's enhanced with human-
> and machine-comprehensible entity relationship semantics when you add RDF
> to the mix.
>
> Venn diagram based Illustration of my point: http://bit.ly/16EVFVG .
>
> If you want your Linked Data to be interpretable by machine, then you can
> achieve that goal via RDF based Linked Data and applications equipped with
> RDF processing capability.
>
> RDF entity relationship semantics are *explicit* whereas run-of-the-mill
> entity relationship model based entity relationship semantics are
> *implicit*.
>
> RDF is the W3C's recommended framework for increasing the semantic
> fidelity of relations that constitute the World Wide Web.
>
> It isn't really that complicated.
>
> RDF can be talked about usefully without inadvertently creating an
> eternally distracting Reality Distortion Field, laden with indefensible
> ambiguity.
>
> --
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 20 June 2013 16:49:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 20 June 2013 16:49:29 UTC