- From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2014 17:11:18 -0400
- To: Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu>, public-hydra@w3.org
On 08/04/2014 04:49 PM, Erik Wilde wrote: > hello. > > i raised this issue on github, but then markus pointed out that > discussions should be on the mailing list, and not on github. so here's > the issue: > > https://github.com/HydraCG/Specifications/issues/66 > > since i have a lot of people asking this question, i am wondering if it > would be helpful (and appropriate) to specifically define linked data as > the RDF flavor Yes, because that's what it is. This question was discussed to death a while back, and finally laid to rest by the official publication of the W3C Linked Data Glossary: http://www.w3.org/TR/ld-glossary/#linked-data In this community, use of the term "linked data" to mean anything other than RDF will create unnecessary confusion and be a disservice to the community. Thanks, David > of linked data (with this latter one being the more > generic concept of just "data that is linked"). we as a community have > had this discussion ad nauseam, but not everybody is following the > community closely. i don't want to start a discussion about the topic > itself, i am simply suggesting to make it clear to readers not knowing > the history of the term that the spec is specifically about the RDF > flavor. that helps people a lot, at least those people i talk to that > get confused about rather generic terms such as "linked data" or "web of > data", and the more constrained ways in which the communities are using > those terms. my personal history about this goes back to > http://dret.typepad.com/dretblog/2009/11/the-linked-data-police.html, > and if people think it would be appropriate and helpful to add some > clarification, i can contribute a paragraph or two. > > thanks, > > dret. > > > >
Received on Monday, 4 August 2014 21:11:46 UTC