- From: Mike Bergman <mike@mkbergman.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 20:55:54 -0500
- To: public-lod@w3.org
+1 Mike PS Pls end this thread; it is a waste of electrons. On 6/11/2013 8:33 PM, David Booth wrote: > > > On 06/11/2013 06:24 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote: >> On 6/11/13 6:18 PM, Luca Matteis wrote: >>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 12:02 AM, Kingsley Idehen >>> <kidehen@openlinksw.com <mailto:kidehen@openlinksw.com>> wrote: >>> >>> Really? You are referring to a revision of the original meme [1]. >>> And when you digest that meme, please don't come back inferring >>> that TimBL must have been thinking about RDF when he produced >>> outlined the four points in his original GOLDEN meme. >>> >>> >>> Who cares about the revisions from way back in 2006? We care about >>> what the document says *today*. And it mentions RDF. So do the top 3 >>> results of the Google result for "linked data" [1][2][3]. > > Indeed. As I pointed out to Kingsley a few weeks ago: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2013Apr/0086.html > [[ > > - Of the top 10 hits from in a google search for "Linked > > Data", **every one of them stated or implied that Linked > > Data is based on RDF.** > > > > - Of the top 10 sites listed in a google search for '"Linked > > Data" is', **every one of them stated or implied that Linked > > Data is based on RDF.** > > > > - Of the top 10 sites listed in a google search for '"Linked > > Data" definition', **every one of them stated or implied > > that Linked Data is based on RDF.** > > > > How much evidence do you need? Shall we check the top > > 100 hits? Or the top 1000 hits? Shall we try other search > > engines? If you search hard enough you might find a tiny > > fraction that supports your claim. But the vast majority > > of the evidence does not. > > > > The vast majority of the evidence indicates that in > > established usage, the term "Linked Data" implies the use > > of RDF. If you wish to propose a new definition that is > > contrary to this established usage, you are obviously free > > to do so. But please do *not* make the patently false claim > > that your proposed new definition reflects accepted usage. > > It very clearly does NOT. > ]] > >>> >>> But I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Do we both agree >>> that RDF is a fundamental requirement for data to be called "Linked >>> Data"? >> >> No I don't, and I never will! > > Apparently no amount of evidence is going to change your mind. > > Please do not be surprised if people are (understandably) annoyed at > your insistence on using the term "Linked Data" in a way that others > find intentionally misleading. > > David > > >
Received on Wednesday, 12 June 2013 01:56:27 UTC