- From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2014 12:44:05 -0400
- To: public-hydra@w3.org
On 08/06/2014 06:26 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote: > On 8/5/14 5:16 PM, Ruben Verborgh wrote: >> Perhaps the SemWeb community shouldn't have claimed the term >> [Linked Data] in the first place… >> A bit arrogant to claim to be the only one linking data (while others >> have done it for years). >> > Yes-ish. There should never have been a power-grab for the phrase > "Linked Data" since it could always have been tagged as "RDF based > Linked Data" even if to those in the know it was a tautology of sorts. I slightly disagree on that point, because at the time when TimBL coined that term the semantic web community was really suffering from an image problem and really needed a term that better conveyed the essential idea. The existing term "Semantic Web" was both putting people off and conjuring incorrect expectations. The term "Linked Data" made a huge difference in the community's ability to market the ideas of the semantic web. I'm not sure that would have been achieved if Linked Data had been defined more broadly to include non-RDF data. Also, at the time when TimBL coined the term, it was not being used in any widespread way for anything else, so I think it's a little unfair to call it a power grab. Contention for the term only arose much later, as a result of the term's success, when a few others thought it would be better to define it more broadly. David
Received on Wednesday, 6 August 2014 16:44:33 UTC