Re: The need for RDF in Linked Data

On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 10:26 PM, David Booth <david@dbooth.org> wrote:

> There seems to be some persistent misunderstanding about the role of RDF
> in Linked Data, as evidenced by comments like the following:
>
>   "RDF is just one implementation of Linked Data"
>
>
I believe that comment is mine. Is it incorrect? You don't offer any
evidence for this. You make a convincing point that adoption of RDF is
paramount for adoption of Linked Data, but this doesn't mean that Linked
Data _necessarily_ implies RDF. Do you see the distinction?

You can have Linked Data without RDF, because Linked Data is defined as a
paradigm, not a particular implementation (which would be the Semantic
Web), not a data model like RDF (the data model of the Semantic Web).

There are presently no known other implementations of Linked Data, but this
doesn't mean it's impossible. If (to borrow an example), we stumbled upon
another civilization on a planet far away, we might find they too have an
implementation of Linked Data, even if not using RDF (though as a side
effect of being Linked Data, the two implementations would be isomorphic,
we would be able to refer to their resources using URIs and vice versa).

If you want to make the point that Linked Data necessarily implies RDF, I'd
like to see the relevant passages from the definition (<
http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html>) cited. If this turned out
to be the case, I'd be somewhat confused, being left without a vocabulary
term to describe RDF's underlying paradigm, and little if any
differentiation between the terms Semantic Web and Linked Data.

Austin.