Re: Terminology when talking about Linked Data

Nathan wrote:
> Dan Brickley wrote:
>   
>> On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 12:51 PM, Damian Steer <d.steer@bristol.ac.uk> wrote:
>>     
>>> Historical aside:
>>>
>>> On 17/02/10 11:20, Hugh Glaser wrote:
>>>
>>>       
>>>> More recently I have also badged as Web of Data;
>>>>         
>>> See [1], since 1998 :-) It's been used fairly regularly since then, although
>>> I'd highlight [2] as a particularly significant use of the term.
>>>
>>> Damian
>>>
>>> [1] <http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Semantic.html>
>>> [2] <http://www.plasticbag.org/archives/2006/02/my_future_of_web_apps_slides/>
>>>       
>> Yes, any use of the phrase "Web of data" that excludes or sidelines
>> work like Tom Coates' here ([2]) would be ... regrettable. There have
>> already been unfortuate run-ins in blog land about whether you can do
>> 'linked data' without using RDF in some LOD-approved manner. There is
>> much much more to 'data' than RDF (or OWL, or triples, or W3C SemWeb).
>> The Web's a big place and we have to be inclusive. RDF was originally
>> standardised as a metadata system, a mechanism for finding stuff ...
>> whether that stuff was photos, videos, HTML pages, excel spreadsheets,
>> SQL databases, 3d models. It can also be used to provide summaries or
>> normalisation of some of the information held in those data objects
>> too. But we shouldn't forget the original use case, nor sideline it.
>> Metadata about non-RDF documents is still linked data imho: all of
>> those forms of Web information are 'linked data' if we use W3C
>> information-linking technology to increase their findability. There's
>> more information out there than fits comfortably in triples or quads;
>> some of the best information is still in people's heads, after all.
>> FOAF was always blurbed as an "experimental linked information
>> system"; we should have been clearer that some of that info was in
>> triples, some in human-oriented documents, and some ... critically ...
>> was still in people's heads. The richness comes from the interplay
>> between those three forms of information. But I guess that's why I
>> still cling nostalgically to the word 'information' here, rather than
>> just 'data'.
>>
>> BTW an early and important paper in the 'web of data' line, which
>> tried to bring RDF and XML together as components of a larger
>> ('Semantic Web') story is http://www.w3.org/1999/04/WebData  ... it
>> doesn't use the phrase explicitly (except in the url path maybe) but
>> it is clear on the need for an inclusive approach.
>>
>> cheers,
>>
>> Dan
>>     
>
> I'd say you're pretty much living testament to the fact that "some of
> the best information is still in people's heads" - thanks for the
> valuable history & links, a great example of an aside (which is being
> debated over in html land), and to delve OT for a minute - do you have
> any papers or even books written on the history of the web / semantic
> web / linked data - I've noted several rather good informative posts
> like this, from yourself, throughout my travels through the mailing list
> archives.
>
> Many Regards,
>
> Nathan
>
>
>   
Nathan,

Del.icio.us is our friend, bookmark em :-)

-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	      
President & CEO 
OpenLink Software     
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen

Received on Wednesday, 17 February 2010 17:30:21 UTC