- From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 09:48:34 +0100
- To: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>
- Cc: Hugh Glaser <hg@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, "<public-lod@w3.org>" <public-lod@w3.org>
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