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

On 06/11/2013 02:15 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> On 6/11/13 1:59 PM, David Booth wrote:
[ . . . ]
>> But RDF *is* one of Linked Data's defining characteristics, regardless
>> of whether people outside the RDF community understand that.  (And it
>> seems to me that if they don't understand that, then we should help
>> them to understand that, rather than perpetuating their
>> misunderstanding.)
>
> Of course its one of the defining characteristics.

Thank you.

> My point is that it
> isn't the most important characteristic when speaking to folks outside
> the RDF community when the subject matter is Linked Data.
>
> This is the crux of the matter re. our disagreement. I don't see a need
> to inject RDF into my conversations about Linked Data when my target
> audience isn't interested in RDF or overtly suffers from R-D-F reflux.

Then use a different term!  Call it "Linked Stuff", or "Hyperdata", or 
"Linked Information", or something else that does not already have a 
well-established meaning that *includes* being based on RDF.

Look, it is fine with me to talk about how "Linked Data" might have been 
defined differently, and how advantageous you think that would have been 
in gaining acceptance.  And it is also fine with me to *propose* that 
the term be re-defined to decouple it from RDF.   But it is *not* okay 
to state or imply that your proposed re-definition of the term is the 
*real* definition, i.e., that it reflects the established meaning of the 
term.  When you do that it sounds like *deliberate* misrepresentation of 
the truth -- i.e., lying -- and that's when you get people like me 
objecting so strenuously.

David

Received on Tuesday, 11 June 2013 21:20:08 UTC