Re: ISSUE-66: LinkedDataT

On 8/6/14 5:44 PM, David Booth wrote:
> 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.

Yes, there was an image problem (self-made) for RDF. That said, TimBL's 
focus had more to do with the existing infrastructure of the Web and its 
proper application. It wasn't about RDF's image at all. I am not 
speculating here, the bootstrap of Linked Open Data wasn't a one-man 
affair there were many of us involved in this.

>   The existing term "Semantic Web" was both putting people off and 
> conjuring incorrect expectations.

No, all of that is/was orthogonal. Remember, the Web has been driven by 
what's now referred to as Linked Data from inception. Linked Data 
predates RDF. It is the very essence of the World Wide Web's core design.

> The term "Linked Data" made a huge difference in the community's 
> ability to market the ideas of the semantic web.

No!

Here's what happened, sadly:

The same group of people that mangled the RDF and Semantic Web 
narratives, simply saw Linked Data as a new vehicle to commence the same 
patterns of communication and behavior that blurred comprehension of RDF 
and the Semantic Web vision.

> I'm not sure that would have been achieved if Linked Data had been 
> defined more broadly to include non-RDF data.

There is not such thing as non-RDF, that's the problem. What RDF 
actually is, and what Linked Data facilitates are all part of the 
original Web design. The word "RDF" and the phrase "Linked Data" simply 
denote fundamental aspects of the Web's original design and implementation.

RDF got into trouble as it evolved from a formalization of what exists 
to a draconian prescription for how things must be done. Plus dollops of 
gobbledegook along they way, in regards to anecdotal material that was 
supposed to support its messages.

> 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. 

Linked Data is a pattern common to any system with names and addresses. 
TimBL never claimed (or made a power-grab) for the phrase, he simply 
described what this aspect of the Web was all about. It was others (over 
the years) that took positions (years later) that constituted the 
power-grab I mentioned.
> Contention for the term only arose much later, as a result of the 
> term's success,

When others decided to ride the success of Linked Open Data.

> when a few others thought it would be better to define it more broadly.

It's more to do with defining it properly so that everyone comes to 
understand how their view point meshes with this. Remember, I said: the 
wisdom of Solomon was never applied to RDF messaging, and that 
eventually carried over to Linked Data too.

In JSON-LD, and more recently Hydra and Linked Data Fragments, I sense 
new opportunities to fix errors from the past.

>
> David
>
>


-- 
Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog 1: http://kidehen.blogspot.com
Personal Weblog 2: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter Profile: https://twitter.com/kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
Personal WebID: http://kingsley.idehen.net/dataspace/person/kidehen#this