Re: The Battle for Linked Data

On 26 March 2012 17:49, Hugh Glaser <hg@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:

> So What is Linked Data?
> And relatedly, Who Owns the Term "Linked Data"?
> (If we used a URI for Linked Data, it might or might not be clearer.)
>
> Of course most people think that "What *I* think is Linked Data is Linked
> Data".
> And by construction, if it is different it is not Linked Data.
> Kingsley views the stuff people are talking about that does not, for
> example, conform to a policy that includes Range-14 as "Structured Data" -
> naming things is important, as we well know, and can serve to separate
> communities..
>
> There are clearly quite a few people who would like to relax things, and
> even go so far as to drop the IR thing completely, but still want to have
> the Linked Data badge on the resultant Project.
> There are others for whom that is anathema.
>
> I actually think that what we are watching is the attempt of the Linked
> Data child to fly the nest from the Semantic Web.
> Can it develop on its own, and possibly have different views to the
> Semantic Web, or must it always be obedient to the objectives of its parent?
>
> Often the objectives of Linked Data engineers are very different to the
> objectives of Semantic Web engineers.
> (A Data Integration technology or a global AI system.)
> So it is not surprising that the technologies they want might be
> different, and even incompatible.
>
> If I push the parent/child analogy beyond its limit, I can see the
> forthcoming TAG meeting as the moment at which the child proposes to reason
> with the parent to try to reach a compromise.
> The TAG seems to be part of the ownership of the term "Linked Data",
> because the Linked Data people (whoever they are) so agree at the moment -
> but this is not a God-given right - I don't think there is any trade- or
> copy-right on the term.
> A failure to arrive at something that the child finds acceptable can often
> lead to a complete rift, where the child leaves home entirely and even
> changes its name.
>
> And of course, after such a separation, exactly who would be using the
> term "Linked Data" to badge their activities?
>

I would definitely use the "Linked Data" term to badge activities.

The way I see it:

1. Linked Documents aka the Web of Documents, has done quite well.  After 2
decades, arguably it's the best technical system built to date.

2. Linked Data, still in its infancy, seems to be exploding.  I think the
tipping point was late last year when facebook came on board.  I hear
linked data success stories on a weekly basis.  Indeed, the World Bank came
on board lately, and it was barely a cause for celebration.  That shows me
a growing maturity.

3. Linked apps is the era ive been looking forward to the most.  We're not
even at the very beginning but I'm very excited about the huge potential of
web scale apps working together, consuming and producing linked data for
both humans and machines.

To use a cliche "If it aint broken, dont try to fix it"

No technology remains static, and I can understand proposals for changes.

But looking from a 50,000 ft perspective, do people honestly think The Web
(and/or Linked Data) is broken?


>
> Like others in this discussion I am typing one-handed, after earlier
> biting my arm off in preference to entering the Range-14 discussion again.
> But I do think this is an important moment for the Linked Data world.
>
> Best
> Hugh
> --
> Hugh Glaser,
>             Web and Internet Science
>             Electronics and Computer Science,
>             University of Southampton,
>             Southampton SO17 1BJ
> Work: +44 23 8059 3670, Fax: +44 23 8059 3045
> Mobile: +44 75 9533 4155 , Home: +44 23 8061 5652
> http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~hg/
>
>
>