Re: Linked Stuff [was Re: RDF's challenge]

Why are we worried about all of this? "Linked Data" is clearly defined by
the four principles of Tim-Berners Lee [1]. RDF is in there. So in order to
be Linked Data it has to use RDF.

If you don't want to use RDF, then you're not doing Linked Data. You're
just doing something else and you're free to call it whatever you want.

1. http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html


On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 11:04 PM, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>wrote:

> On 6/11/13 4:51 PM, David Booth wrote:
>
>> On 06/11/2013 04:20 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/11/13 4:12 PM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     This is the goal of the Semantic Web: to enable machines to
>>>>     usefully and (semi-)automatically, find, share, combine and
>>>>     process web data. Because Linked Data is RDF, Linked Data supports
>>>>     that goal in a very important way that Linked Stuff does not.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We already have the 5 stars of linked data.  If you use RDF you're
>>>> probably 5 star.  If you dont you're probably 4 star or lower.  That
>>>> said, there may be some other linked data system one day become a 5
>>>> star standard.
>>>>
>>>
>> The stars are to encourage people *toward* Linked Open Data -- both
>> Linked Data and fully Open Data.  The stars do *not* indicate that there is
>> such a thing as "one-star Linked Data" or "four-star Linked Data".
>>
>
> That isn't my point.
>
> My point is that the document provides a nice guideline for moving folks
> towards Linked Data. It does so without putting RDF at the front-door.
>
> Again, I am not debating the virtues of RDF. My profound difference with
> you simply boils down to not seeing the need to inextricably link RDF and
> Linked Data, at every turn. I have no interest in adding inertia to
> engagement endeavors when the target audience has no interest in the
> letters R-D-F. I care much more about the underlying concepts and their
> utility than I do  labels.
>
> I am not interested in proving any point or winning any wars around the
> letters R-D-F. I encourage you to consider doing the same thing. The world
> fully exploiting the power of the Web is an endeavor achievable without RDF
> at the front-door.
>
> Note: not having RDF at the front-door in now way renders it useless or
> irrelevant.
>
>  Think about it.
>>
>
> I have, for many many years, which is why I am still investing so much
> time on this subject matter.
>
>
>  Would it make any sense to call a PDF document "Linked Data" just because
>> it is on the web with an open license?
>>
>
> No comment.
>
>  Of course not.
>>
>
> Thank you.
>
>
>  But it would qualify for one star on the path *toward* Linked Open Data.
>>
>
> A Paper Description Format (what PDF is to me) has nothing to do with any
> kind of openly accessible data, modulo the increasing existence of
> extractor and conversion tools.
>
>
> Kingsley
>
>
>>
>>> Great point!
>>>
>>> The 5-Star Open Data system [1] is a nice approach to framing this most
>>> challenging of narratives. It's greatest virtue is not putting RDF at
>>> the front-door :-)
>>>
>>>
>>> Links:
>>>
>>> 1. http://5stardata.info/ -- 5-Start Open Data
>>>
>>
>> That is *Open* Data -- not *Linked* Data.  When you reach all five stars
>> it becomes both: Linked Open Data.
>>
>> David
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
>
> Regards,
>
> Kingsley Idehen
> Founder & CEO
> OpenLink Software
> Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
> Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/**blog/~kidehen<http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen>
> Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
> Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/**112399767740508618350/about<https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about>
> LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/**kidehen<http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen>
>
>
>
>
>
>