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

Re: Review of Relevant Technologies section

From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 19:52:39 -0700
Message-ID: <20110629195239.21163mru8biggb93@kcoyle.net>
To: public-lld@w3.org
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? Is there an example of non-RDF LD that we can refer to?

kc

-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
Received on Thursday, 30 June 2011 02:53:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:27:44 UTC