Re: LinkedData != RDF ?

On Thu, 2011-05-19 at 20:55 -0400, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> 
> Sandro: since I know you seek Linked Data bootstrap too, please 
> encourage TimBL to roll back his Linked Data meme update. Just take
> it 
> back to how it was, and the delayed bootstrap will happen. Facebook's 
> nearly there, and evolving from their literals based data graphs to
> URIs 
> and literals based linked data graphs becomes a simple tweak. Ditto 
> Microsoft, Google and others re. their respective data graph 
> representation formats.  We can do this :-)

I think that would be a short term gain (people using something labeled
"linked data" and people using URIs to identify things), but a long term
loss, because (by having different formats for data), still no
interoperability.

I wouldn't be terribly opposed to reversing starts 4 and 5, so you do
triples-with-shared-URIs first, then RDF second, but it seems to me that
to get interoperability, you need to actually have standards for the
bits on the wire....    Okay, that came out wrong, because I know you
know this...    What format are you proposing for serializing these
triples?

   -- Sandro

Received on Friday, 20 May 2011 17:58:48 UTC