W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > July 2010

Linked Data Spec (was Re: Subjects as Literals)

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2010 23:52:35 -0400
To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
Cc: Henry Story <henry.story@gmail.com>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1278474755.10248.207.camel@waldron>
On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 22:23 -0400, David Booth wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 20:45 +0200, Henry Story wrote:
> [ . . . ] 
> > foaf:knows a rdf:Property .
> > 
> > Well we can dereference foaf:knows to find out what it means. This is
> > the canonical way to find it's meaning, and is the initial procedure we
> > should use to arbitrate between competing understandings of its meaning.
> 
> Right.  The document you get upon dereferencing -- the "follow your
> nose" document -- acts as a URI declaration.[1]
> 
> 1. http://dbooth.org/2007/uri-decl/ 

To be clear, this is your proposal, not a part of the current RDF
specifications.    Your phrasing might confuse people about that.  

Your proposal is somewhat more specific than the general Linked Data
proposal, eg http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData

Two questions for the W3C community going forward are:

 * exactly what do we mean by Linked Data (ie do we follow
   David's proposal?)

 * in the general case, "should" data be published as RDF
   Linked Data?

The workshop output on these subjects is here:

http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/RDF_Core_Charter_2010#Linked_Data_Work_Items

and see the strawpoll results:

http://www.w3.org/2010/06/rdf-work-items/table

If someone wants to re-factor and revise those proposals, I'd encourage
them to do it on that wiki, but on a new page.

Some of this work may end up being tackled as part of the eGovernment
Activity instead of the Semantic Web activity, perhaps.

    -- Sandro
Received on Wednesday, 7 July 2010 03:52:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 21:45:37 GMT