- From: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2013 13:01:55 +0200
- To: Jonas Smedegaard <dr@jones.dk>
- Cc: "public-fedsocweb@w3.org" <public-fedsocweb@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAKaEYhK+PFmE_gVY7dWXfLFH+=24hdzAaKLmBcOBmj6H7WpSvg@mail.gmail.com>
On 3 July 2013 12:17, Jonas Smedegaard <dr@jones.dk> wrote: > Quoting Melvin Carvalho (2013-07-03 09:19:12) > On 3 July 2013 09:11, Jonas Smedegaard <dr@jones.dk> wrote: > >> Quoting Kingsley Idehen (2013-07-03 01:35:21) > >>> In the W3C world clearly Linked Open Data (LOD) is now pitched as > >>> Public Linked Data. But that kind of positioning makes no sense and > >>> is utterly indefensible. > >>> > >>> "Open systems were those that would meet agreed specifications or > >>> standards. This resulted in the formation of X/Open Company Ltd > >>> whose remit was, and today in the guise of The Open Group remains, > >>> to define a comprehensive open systems environment. Open systems, > >>> they declared, would save on costs, attract a wider portfolio of > >>> applications and competition on equal terms. X/Open chose the UNIX > >>> system as the platform for the basis of open systems." > >>> > >>> -- excerpt from Unix History [1] (I worked as a Unix consultant at > >>> Unisys in the late 80's prior to founding OpenLink Software). > >> > >> Thanks for explaining how not even "Linked Open Data" (emphasized by > >> capital letters and quotes as being a concept rather than three words > >> with individual meaning) is open for interpretation. > > Whoops - a bogus "not" accidentally sneaked into my sentence above. > > > >> In this thread, when explaining what _I_ got confused about, I was in > >> fact talking about a different concept than "Open systems". > >> > >> I shall consider to instead use linked-open-data-as-defined-by-W3C in > >> the future, when myself talking about what I mean. > >> > > > > Linked (Open) Data is not defined normatively anywhere by the W3C. > > Ah, good point. > > What I mean is linked-open-data-as-per-W3C-draft-definition. > > Is that still ambiguous? Has W3C ever made any other draft definition > than <http://www.w3.org/TR/ld-glossary/#linked-open-data> for "Linked > Open Data"? Is perhaps "Open" a protected word similar to "Unix"? > [[ This document was published by the Government Linked Data Working Group<http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/>as a Working Group Note. Publication as a Working Group Note does not imply endorsement by the W3CMembership. This is a draft document and may be updated, replaced or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to cite this document as other than work in progress. ]] So pretty informal, and informational. Some items may be subject to interpretation. Also the document is only a week old, it's very much a work in progress (just my 2 cents) > > > - Jonas > > -- > * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt > * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ > > [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private >
Received on Wednesday, 3 July 2013 11:02:23 UTC