W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lld@w3.org > July 2011

Re: Review of Relevant Technologies section

From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2011 11:08:28 +0200
Message-ID: <4E15778C.1070606@few.vu.nl>
To: public-lld@w3.org
On 6/30/11 4:52 AM, Karen Coyle wrote:
> Quoting Jon Phipps <jonp@jesandco.org>:
>> 2. There's considerable confusion regarding RDF and Linked Data, often
>> treating the two technologies as synonymous. Although they share some
>> features, such as the centrality of URIs to the technology, Linked Data
>> doesn't require RDF either as transport, storage or data model.
> I noticed another use of RDF as linked data in the Available Vocabularies section:
> "Metadata element sets: A metadata element set is a namespace that contains terms used to describe entities. In the linked data paradigm, such element sets are materialized through (RDF) schemas or (OWL) ontologies, with RDF vocabulary occasionally being used as an umbrella term. " (para. 6 in blog)
> Would a term like "generally" before "materialized" satisfy the concern?

That does not cost much to include, and seems quite right, indeed.

Thanks for spotting this, Karen!

> Is there an example of non-RDF LD that we can refer to?

Not sure. There are JSON-based proposals, e.g., http://json-ld.org/, but these things are very close to/inspired by RDF, and in fact should make it in the next RDF version, cf. http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/TF-JSON
RDF is so closely matching the principles of linked data (data about things expressed using links) that it will be probably difficult to find something radically different.

Received on Thursday, 7 July 2011 09:07:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:19:03 UTC