- From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Date: Sat, 09 Aug 2014 10:00:58 -0400
- To: Luca Matteis <lmatteis@gmail.com>, "McBennett, Pat" <McBennettP@dnb.com>
- CC: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>, "public-hydra@w3.org" <public-hydra@w3.org>
On 08/08/2014 11:13 AM, Luca Matteis wrote: > JSON-LD creator obviously thinks you can do Linked Data without RDF [1]. He did at the time. I hope he doesn't still think that, now that the official W3C Linked Data Glossary has been published: http://www.w3.org/TR/ld-glossary/ > Others however think these are just ways to link data and are not > inherent with the meaning of the actual "Linked Data" term [2]. > Another person also brings up the point that RDF is part of Linked > Data because "even if the data producer doesn't know anything about > RDF, when applying the meme he will produce something that follows the > RDF abstract syntax." - which I think is a good point [3]. > Finally a pool was setup to end the discussion... and... *rolling of > drums*... https://docs.google.com/forms/d/15PLmn7Od2Ye5QT-xpMp7e__EjSCAWNXgvLOQHJO2aO0/viewanalytics?pli=1 > The poll may have helped end the discussion, but I think what really ended it was the final publication of the Linked Data Glossary. David > Here were my final words to end the discussion: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lod/2013Jun/0298.html > > 1. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lod/2013Jun/0260.html > 2. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lod/2013Jun/0263.html > 3. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lod/2013Jun/0307.html > > On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 4:55 PM, Luca Matteis <lmatteis@gmail.com> wrote: >> Btw this already happened last year on the Linked Data mailing list: >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lod/2013Jun/thread.html#msg208 >> >> :-) >> >> On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 4:11 PM, McBennett, Pat <McBennettP@dnb.com> wrote: >>>> -----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 Saturday, 9 August 2014 14:01:27 UTC