W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-lld@w3.org > September 2011

Re: First mention of RDF - IMPORTANT ISSUE

From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2011 14:23:01 -0700
Message-ID: <20110901142301.21461783fw4sfyd1@kcoyle.net>
To: public-xg-lld@w3.org
This is tricky, in part because we have decided that Linked Data is a  
defined standard and Linked Data (based on the coffee cup [1]) must  
use RDF. Yet, we aren't tying library linked data to RDF in our  
report. So I like Tom's wording, but it implies that our decision on  
using Linked Data (rather than "linked data") may not be accurate.  
That said, I'm prepared to go with Tom's wording, to use Linked Data,  
and not worry overly about the RDF/not subtleties, since I think most  
readers of the report won't really care.

[1] http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html

Quoting Tom Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>:

> A point that had escaped me when reading the sections separately and out of
> sequential order: The first mention of RDF currently comes in the Benefits
> section, where it is mentioned in a way that assumes it has been introduced
> earlier.
> Where to introduce RDF?  The logical place is in the Scope.  In Scope, we
> currently cite the TimBL's principles [1], and those principles say  
> that where
> links are relationships anchors in hypertext documents written in HTML, for
> data they are links between arbitrary things described by RDF (and further
> down: "When someone looks up a URI, provide useful information, using the
> standards (RDF, SPARQL)").  As in the diff [2], I propose:
>     Linked Data uses Web addresses (URIs) as globally unique identifiers for
>     dataset items, elements, and value concepts -- analogously to the library
>     world's identifiers for authority control -- and provides data using
>     standards such as the Resource Description Framework (RDF).
> I hesitate between "such as the Resource Description Framework" and other
> possible wordings, e.g., "based on" or the stronger "using RDF", but  
> this could
> potentially create confusion re: references to OWL.  It has been  
> argued on our
> lists that Linked Data does not require RDF, but we have grounded  
> our usage in
> [1] so I think it helps to make this clear.
> Tom
> [1] http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html
> [2]  
> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/index.php?title=Scope&diff=6052&oldid=6048

Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
Received on Thursday, 1 September 2011 21:23:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:35:58 UTC