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

Re: Re-definition of Linked Data

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 13:43:34 -0400
Message-ID: <51BF4AC6.1080802@openlinksw.com>
To: public-rdf-comments@w3.org
On 6/17/13 1:25 PM, David Booth wrote:
> 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
>
>
>
There is nothing to wordsmith, you poll even verifies my point.

Here's my point:

If the W3C's RDF group is to endorseJSON-LD as a recommended concrete 
syntax for RDF, then it is natural (and basic common sense) for said 
workgroup to define Linked Data using the bullet points outlined in 
TimBL's revised meme. Why would the RDF workgroup of the W3C do anything 
different?


Note:

My point (above) doesn't mean that RDF and Linked Data are the same 
thing. It simply acknowledges the fact (the basis of your poll) that in 
the context of a W3C recommendation, from a W3C workgroup dedicated to 
RDF, the Linked Data aspects of the JSON-LD spec should be constructed 
in line with TimBL's revised meme.

My point *will never mean or imply* that you cannot produce Linked Data 
without RDF.

It makes absolutely no sense for the RDF workgroup of the W3C to endorse 
*any* standard that's inconsistent with its definition of RDF.

I desperately hope this sheds clarity on my position.

If anything, I should have brought attention to the fact that JSON-LD 
becoming an RDF workgroup recommendation isn't something (I for one) 
immediately honed into during my conversations about Linked Data in the 
context of JSON-LD's spec evolution.

If JSON-LD seeks official recommendation from the W3C's RDF working 
group, then it has to adhere to the minimum requirements sought by that 
group. Again, that's common sense.

What's outstanding at this point in time? Determination by the W3C's RDF 
working group as to what it deems to be normative re. Linked Data based 
on (or maybe not) TimBL's informative memes.

-- 

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 Monday, 17 June 2013 17:43:57 UTC

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