Re: RDF's challenge

On Jun 11, 2013, at 12:58, Hugh Glaser <hg@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:

> Nicely put, David.
> I have heard people going the other way and disconnecting them, however.
> That is, suggesting that Linked Data does not need to be RDF, which I do find confuses people (and me!)

It seems to me that those unnamed "Web developers" (I am a Web developer, but not of their opinion) who think that RDF is unnatural are solving a different and simpler problem than Linked Data or RDF developers.  They rightly recognize that the RDF formats don't provide them any value when getting data from a *single source* for display within a browser.  They are not trying to combine data from different silos.  When you do that, Linked Data and RDF are a very natural way to go.

Regards,
Dave
--
http://about.me/david_wood


> 
> On 11 Jun 2013, at 16:56, David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
> wrote:
> 
>> On 06/11/2013 10:59 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>>> [ . . . ]  many RDF advocates
>>> want to conflate Linked Data and RDF. This is technically wrong, and
>>> marketing wise -- an utter disaster.
>> 
>> I have not heard RDF advocates conflating Linked Data and RDF, but maybe you talk to different RDF advocates than me.
>> 
>> AFAICT, the vast majority of RDF advocates know that Linked Data is RDF in which URIs are deferenceable to more RDF, but RDF is not necessarily Linked Data, because RDF itself does not require URIs to be dereferenceable.
>> 
>> David
>> 
> 
>