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

RE: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment -- Sub-issue on the re-definition of Linked Data

From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 01:16:25 +0200
To: "'public-rdf-comments'" <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>
Message-ID: <012e01ce6567$5d7b6d90$187248b0$@lanthaler@gmx.net>
On Sunday, June 09, 2013 11:28 PM, David Booth wrote:
> Specific wording changes suggested:
> 
> 1. Add TimBL's Linked Data document to the list of references, with a
> short name of [LINKED_DATA]:
> http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html
> 
> 2. In section 1 ("Introduction"), change the first occurrence of
> "Linked
> Data" in two ways: (a) change the font to be a plain, non-bold,
> non-italic font; and (b) add the citation "[LINKED_DATA]" after it.

As Gregg already explained the formatting is due to internal cross-references. Why is that important?


> 3. Also in section 1 ("Introduction"), change:
> 
>    "In general, Linked Data has four properties: 1) it uses IRIs
>    to name things; 2) it uses HTTP IRIs for those names; 3) the
>    name IRIs, when dereferenced, provide more information about
>    the thing; and 4) the data expresses links to data on other
>    Web sites. These properties allow"
> 
> to:
> 
>    "It allows"

I don't think it is very wise to require readers to read an external document (which is still a draft btw.) in the very first sentence. Thus I would be against this change. I think adding a reference as you suggest is very reasonable and makes it clear that we are just quickly describing the concept here.

So, would you be satisfied if we would add the reference but not remove the description?



--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler
Received on Sunday, 9 June 2013 23:17:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:29:57 UTC