- From: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>
- Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 09:14:16 -0400
- To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Cc: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, "public-rdf-comments@w3.org" <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>
On Apr 29, 2013, at 9:06, David Booth <david@dbooth.org> wrote: >> Over extending what RDF is remains its ultimate problem. RDF doesn't >> have to cloud the definition of everything in order for it to be useful :-) > > That's directly backwards. What's clouding the definition is *not* RDF, but the attempt to redefine the term "Linked Data" to mean something different than what it was specifically coined to mean: > http://www.w3.org/standards/semanticweb/data > http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html Yes, agreed. Linked Data builds on RDF and not the reverse. That's why I said that it is fine with me that JSON-LD says "Linked Data" and not RDF. I am sympathetic to those wishing to broaden the serializations and use of the RDF data model but not to those wishing to include (e.g.) Excel under Linked Data. Regards, Dave
Received on Monday, 29 April 2013 13:14:49 UTC