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

Re: Linked Data discussions require better communication

From: Giovanni Tummarello <giovanni.tummarello@deri.org>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 18:54:47 +0200
Message-ID: <CAHHRs7iCnYO1M2kL1JBra62Ojt4=R_nNbiQ4HTydx09S=D7C8w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Cc: Linking Open Data <public-lod@w3.org>
My 2c is .. i agree with kingsley diagram , linked data should be possible
without RDF (no matter serialization) :)
however this is different from previous definitions

i think its a step forward.. but it is different from previously. Do we
want to call it  Linked Data 2.0? under this definition also
schema.orgmarked up pages would be linked data .. and i agree plenty
with this .

Gio


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 16:55:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 20 June 2013 16:55:35 UTC