W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > June 2013

Re: RDF's challenge

From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 09:48:34 +0100
Cc: Hugh Glaser <hg@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, "<public-lod@w3.org>" <public-lod@w3.org>
Message-Id: <0CDEBD3B-F3BA-401F-ADBE-1BA16D7D83ED@garlik.com>
To: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>
On 2013-06-11, at 18:09, David Wood <david@3roundstones.com> wrote:
> 
> 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.

Right, exactly.

There are many situations where RDF is overkill. For the situations where it's not, it's a good solution.

I have some reservations about RDF becoming more complex to use (or appearing to be) over time, but that's another issue.

I don't see how RDF can be not "web native" - what does that even mean? How is RDF more complex than GIF? Is GIF not "web native". It's total gibberish.

- Steve

-- 
Steve Harris
Experian
+44 20 3042 4132
Registered in England and Wales 653331 VAT # 887 1335 93
80 Victoria Street, London, SW1E 5JL
Received on Wednesday, 12 June 2013 08:49:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:16:36 UTC