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

Re: Re-definition of Linked Data

From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 13:25:46 -0400
Message-ID: <51BF469A.7050600@dbooth.org>
To: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
CC: 'public-rdf-comments' <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>
On 06/17/2013 09:35 AM, Markus Lanthaler wrote:
> On Sunday, June 16, 2013 8:01 PM, Pat Hayes wrote:
[ . . . ]
>> Although there is no exact definition of Linked Data, it is typically
>> has four important properties:
>>
>> or some such wording.
>
> I'm afraid that this would just be the start of another endless discussion
> but I would certainly be OK with that.
> David?

Unfortunately no.  If it lists "four important properties" and omits RDF 
then that would not be acceptable, because as I tried to explain in detail,
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2013Jun/0120.html
RDF is *essential* to Linked Data if Linked Data is intended to support 
the goal of the Semantic Web in its current architecture.  Omitting RDF 
in such a list would feel almost as misleading as listing "important 
properties of the Web" while omitting URIs.

However, I would be happy to work on wordsmithing to try to reach 
consensus, as I don't mean to be foisting the wordsmithing burden on 
others.  I plan to draft one or more proposals later today or tonight. 
It would help me if I understood better what others are concerned 
*should* be said.  For example, I still don't understand why any 
re-statement of Linked Data principles is needed at all, since AFAICT 
readers don't need to know about Linked Data in order to use JSON-LD. 
Is the purpose just to spread the gospel about Linked Data?

David
Received on Monday, 17 June 2013 17:26:14 UTC

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