- From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
- Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 19:36:43 +0100
- To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- CC: "community, Linked" <public-lod@w3.org>
David Booth wrote: > A heated debate has been raging about the accepted meaning > of the term "Linked Data" in the context of the Semantic > Web community -- whether or not this term implies the use > of RDF. Pointless, or are you going to do trademark the term and sue anybody who uses it to refer to anything other than RDF? It boils down to some people saying "we made/use this, use it too" and others saying "we'd like to use this too, it does the same job and is compatible", and Kingsley and some others saying "we can integrate it all why worry". Axioms of tolerance, and modular design apply here: a) tolerate other over the wires types b) RDF is part of a modular design, namely linked data and the semantic web. So RDF may spring to mind when you say Linked Data, given it's so prevalent, but Linked Data refers to a set of things, RDF is just one of them.
Received on Thursday, 13 June 2013 18:37:49 UTC