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

+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