RE: Has ISSUE-66 been properly addressed?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Markus Lanthaler [mailto:markus.lanthaler@gmx.net]
> Sent: Friday, August 08, 2014 10:43 AM
> To: public-hydra@w3.org
> Cc: 'Erik Wilde'
> Subject: Has ISSUE-66 been properly addressed?
> 
> ISSUE-66 [1] was raised by Erik. There have been lots of discussions and as
> far as I can tell, Ruben has implemented all feedback in the spec apart my
> comment in [2]. I don't see that as a blocker though. Has this issue been
> adequately addressed?
> 
> I'm primarily asking you, Erik, here (CCed) as you raised this issue in the first
> place but of course everyone is welcome to comment.
> 
> Unless someone objects, I'm going to close ISSUE-66 mid next week.
> 

+1 (assuming the resolution is to include a paragraph explicitly stating that all our Linked Data references refer to the 'RDF-based' form).

Like Ruben, I was completely unaware of attempts to introduce the term 'linked data' (or to broaden the definition of 'Linked Data') to try to include 'non-RDF-based' forms of data. Personally I agree with David Booth's assertions that, if I understood correctly, whoever attempted to broaden the definition of 'Linked Data' beyond RDF is responsible for any subsequent confusion. Rather they should have minted their own term (like 'NoLinkedData' maybe, as in 'Not-Only Linked Data' :) !).

Regardless, given that there may now be confusion, or potential confusion, out there, I don't see any harm in explicitly declaring that our usage of the term Linked Data is intended to directly support RDF-based forms of data (but if you want to extend it or use these specs for something else yourself, then fine, that's up to you).

> 
> Thanks,
> Markus
> 
> 
> [1] https://github.com/HydraCG/Specifications/issues/66
> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-hydra/2014Aug/0093.html
>

Received on Friday, 8 August 2014 14:12:25 UTC