Re: How is "Linked Open Data" different from "Linked Data"?

On 7/3/13 6:17 AM, Jonas Smedegaard 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"?
>
>
>   - Jonas
>
Jonas,

The note from the W3C on the surface is a note, but as you clearly 
demonstrate, folks will take it as an endorsed W3C viewpoint.

My only suggestion to you is this: put terminology through your own 
scrutiny. The Web provides easy access to literature and history. Do 
that and you will never be susceptible to misguided attempts to redefine 
critical aspects of any innovation continuum, and that includes the 
World Wide Web :-)



-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen