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

Re: Linked Data discussions require better communication

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 10:25:02 -0400
Message-ID: <51C4623E.9000805@openlinksw.com>
To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
CC: Ted Thibodeau Jr <tthibodeau@openlinksw.com>, Luca Matteis <lmatteis@gmail.com>, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>, "Courtney, Paul K." <Paul_Courtney@dfci.harvard.edu>, "public-lod@w3.org" <public-lod@w3.org>
On 6/21/13 10:15 AM, David Booth wrote:
> On 06/20/2013 02:09 PM, Ted Thibodeau Jr wrote:
>> <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?
>
> Exactly.  Read the criteria above for the stars, and think about it. 
> Suppose a JPEG image is placed on the web with an open license.  Would 
> it make any sense to call it "Linked Open Data", just because it meets 
> the criteria for one star?  Certainly not, as that would render the 
> term completely meaningless.  And as a second example, notice that 
> linking only comes into play with *five* stars: data meeting the first 
> four stars is not even linked!  It would not any make sense at all to 
> call something "4-star Linked Open Data" if it is not even linked!
>
> The only sensible interpretation of the stars is that they indicate 
> milestones of progress *toward* "Linked Open Data" -- *not* that there 
> are five levels of Linked Open Data.
>
> David
>
>

That makes sense. Thus, why can't you accept the same thinking if we 
look at RDF unique selling points as part of such a journey too?

What's wrong with folks arriving at points in the continuum where RDF's 
virtues kick-in without actually being aware of RDF?

BTW -- I still don't know if you accept the world view outlined in my 
venn diagram [1]. I don't want to misquote you, so at the very least, 
could you confirm if you agree with the venn diagram or not.

Links:

1. http://bit.ly/16EVFVG -- how Structured Data (Linked Data), Predicate 
Logic (RDF), and Identifiers (URIs) are related.

-- 

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 Friday, 21 June 2013 14:25:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 21 June 2013 14:25:33 UTC