- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2015 07:15:18 -0800
- To: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
- CC: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 02/06/2015 06:34 AM, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote: > * Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> [2015-02-06 > 06:11-0800] [...] > >> Another problem is that the document is very unclear as to which world >> LDOM lives in. Is it RDF or linked data? LDOM can live in the RDF >> world and be applied to linked data, but if LDOM lives in the linked >> data world then it will be difficult to use LDOM outside of the linked >> data world. > > Ouch, marketing impasse. Can we forget about this for the time being? > > Some folks want to market this as Linked Data. Others say "it's just RDF, > damnit." In fact, I'm more sympathetic to the RDF crowd but I don't think > this is a real technical issue. If it's designed for RDF, of course it > applies to Linked Data. There are no rules asserting what Linked Data (I > have a mug, but I don't think it's authoritative) so I don't think you > can find anything that works for Linked Data that doesn't also work for > RDF. PROPOSAL: We don't need to resolve this before FPWD. > Maybe, but wording like "find the definition of X on the web" is going to be hard to retract. (Not that I'm saying that the primer has this sort of wording, but it is a big difference between RDF and linked data.) peter -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJU1NqGAAoJECjN6+QThfjzHcsH/Rkc4ziebzmeMTVkMRLnuas5 SjSlvgq7dQXc+2XfG4o0wxjq1eybHM7+KrDBo60+ZNCRKarHmBiZVovETqXfkt5O 5Ub5Jy89ofW7AhD0Ofks0zma6kZM9vPyM0fbZdo9YOXQFRuRhlJECUsdPbDf5Wq8 6WC0+pU1bZgapkfctEEXV/XTByFE1zkBJR3rn9KZ3Pp+VUKlyZsISt2vRu9Lz2Ga +Rf/4fOslh5U33E5VoPnYnfAgcL+XF6w7RI3305JD5A4bVdpdmm+WkiIPXB8mux/ 9L9dZRfquILYYHA859WBVEWLdQ6ON5la7Tqy2KjDoic+TwHEZZIAuvg4uJqUBWI= =1C3U -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Friday, 6 February 2015 15:15:47 UTC