Re: Terminology when talking about Linked Data

Mike Bergman wrote:
> Hi Nathan,
> 
> Though I assume not universally shared:
> 
> On 2/16/2010 7:32 PM, Nathan wrote:
>> Peter Ansell wrote:
>>> Hi Nathan,
>>>
>>> On 17 February 2010 11:18, Nathan<nathan@webr3.org>  wrote:
>>>> Hi All,
>>>>
>>>> Other than the obvious - Linking Open Data = The name of W3C Community
>>>> Project - I'm wondering which terminology to use where when talking
>>>> about (what I'll term "Linked Data" for now).
>>>>
>>>> To me, "Linked Data" represents the<uri>  <uri>  <uri>  triples; the
>>>> thing
>>>> at the core of it, which can be used behind the firewall in a "silo"
>>>> with nothing open about it.
>>>>
>>>> So if I then term "Linked Open Data" as "Linked Data" which has been
>>>> published properly, then what do I use to refer to the tech-stack and
>>>> principals as a whole?
>>>
>>> If it is published internally to an organisation, it may still be
>>> Linked Data as the URI's may be resolvable internally by all people
>>> who have any need to see the information. It may violate privacy laws
>>> for example for the information to be publically available.
>>>
>>> I wouldn't so much refer to it as "properly" published, as
>>> "publically" published.
> 
> Linked data is a set of best practices for publishing and deploying
> instance and class data using the RDF data model. Two of the best
> practices are to name the data objects using uniform resource
> identifiers (URIs), and to expose the data for access via the HTTP
> protocol. Both of these practices enable the Web to become a distributed
> database, which also means that Web architectures can also be readily
> employed.
> 
> It is not an end in itself, a manifesto for "open data", or a substitute
> for the semantic Web.  It is a useful and recommended practice
> (technique), but nothing more [1]. ;)
> 
> Mike
> 
> [1] http://structureddynamics.com/linked_data.html

would agree; so far all the responses have been different ways of saying
what "linked data" is; which i agree with wholeheartedly; but further
down the in-line comments you'll find the specific problem I'm facing.

>>> What is the context in which you need to make the distinction?
>>>
>>
>> The context is purely in discussion format; when I'm talking about
>> "Linked Data" - if I first explain it to mean "linked data"; then talk
>> about it being made public as "linked open data" (leaving the
>> private/public what to publish bit out of it) then to what do I refer to
>> the overall tech-stack as? everything that comes with it eg:
>>
>>   - Linked Data, RDF, SPARQL, REST, Quad-Stores, REST, Ontologies, OWL2,
>> EAV/CR, FOAF+SSL, HTTP, URIs etc
>>
>> A name for the above as a whole.
>>

Two people thus far have said "semantic web" with some extra words;
here's the exact problem I'm facing - linked data is what it is, easily
explained. But the "Semantic Web (enabling) technologies" (which was
suggested to me off-list) brings up the following problems.

when I refer to "semantic web" 50% of people think I mean HTML5 or H1-H6
tags, and the other 50% think I mean the stuff returned from open
calais. (strangely!)

and last time I said "linked open data"; well here's the response I
received:

"The whole thing about mash-ups/linked data is odd. No one is
generating any data. Just reusing/repackaging/rebranding. In hardware
terms, they are VARs. And whilst VARs may be cheaper, they aren't
often better them OEMs."

other responses to the mention of the term "linked open data" were all
along the lines of "it lets you get information from lots of places" aka
web services aka I don't need linked open data and the semantic web
technologies because I work internally within a silo which only calls on
SOAP web service from the supplier.

At no point have I had a term I could use to which people went - "ahh
what's that, do tell me more"

Hope that helps explain where I'm coming from, and to clarify further
this is for use when talking to general web developers and designers -
any mention of this to plumbers and window cleaners I find ends up in
them looking at me like I just broke wind (as Billy Connolly would say).

Regards & thanks thus far!

Nathan

Received on Wednesday, 17 February 2010 02:19:43 UTC