Re: Linked Data discussions require better communication

On Jun 20, 2013, at 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:

Much snipped...

I'm going to quote from one of TimBL's pages, to which Luca and
Melvin just pointed.

<http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html>

Discussing 5-star Linked Open Data (2010 addition to this
document created in 2006) --

> ★        Available on the web (whatever format) but with
>           an open licence, to be Open Data
> ★★       Available as machine-readable structured data
>           (e.g. excel instead of image scan of a table)
> ★★★      as (2) plus non-proprietary format (e.g. CSV
>            instead of excel)
> ★★★★    All the above plus, Use open standards from W3C
>            (RDF and SPARQL) to identify things, so that
>            people can point at your stuff
> ★★★★★  All the above, plus: Link your data to other
>            people’s data to provide context



Now...  RDF doesn't come in until you get a 4-star rating.

Are all you folks who are arguing that Linked Data *mandates*
RDF suggesting that 1-, 2-, and 3-star rated Linked Open Data
is *not* Linked Data?

Because this rating scheme strongly suggests otherwise to me.


In the same document, the 4 Steps that TimBL Spake --

> 1. Use URIs as names for things
> 
> 2. Use HTTP URIs so that people can look up those names.
> 
> 3. When someone looks up a URI, provide useful information,
>    using the standards (RDF*, SPARQL)
> 
> 4. Include links to other URIs. so that they can discover
>    more things.         

In its *earliest* form (which regrettably was not captured by 
the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine), the last phrase of #3 
read "using the standards."  (I thought it said "using the
*relevant* standards," emphasis mine, but I'm not certain of
that.)  I am absolutely certain that it mentioned neither RDF 
nor SPARQL in specific.

I don't remember whether HTTP was originally in #2, but I submit
that *that* would be better changed to "dereferenceable" -- 
because I don't believe that HTTP is or should be The Answer 
For All Time, as much as it may have been the best at the time 
of writing, and may still be the best today.

And again, I wonder, even given that Words From TimBL get such 
special treatment, why is *this* revision considered perfect, 
if his original writing was not?


Be seeing you,

Ted



--
A: Yes.                      http://www.guckes.net/faq/attribution.html
| Q: Are you sure?
| | A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
| | | Q: Why is top posting frowned upon?

Ted Thibodeau, Jr.           //               voice +1-781-273-0900 x32
Senior Support & Evangelism  //        mailto:tthibodeau@openlinksw.com
                             //              http://twitter.com/TallTed
OpenLink Software, Inc.      //              http://www.openlinksw.com/
         10 Burlington Mall Road, Suite 265, Burlington MA 01803
     Weblog   -- http://www.openlinksw.com/blogs/
     LinkedIn -- http://www.linkedin.com/company/openlink-software/
     Twitter  -- http://twitter.com/OpenLink
     Google+  -- http://plus.google.com/100570109519069333827/
     Facebook -- http://www.facebook.com/OpenLinkSoftware
Universal Data Access, Integration, and Management Technology Providers