Re: Ending the Linked Data debate -- PLEASE VOTE *NOW*!

On 13 June 2013 21:04, Norman Gray <norman@astro.gla.ac.uk> wrote:

>
> Greetings.
>
> On 2013 Jun 13, at 19:36, Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> wrote:
>
> [reordered]
>
> > 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.
>
> RDF is indeed just one of the things implied by the term 'linked data',
> but RDF is (I'm pretty sure) the only data representation mechanism
> included in that bag of things.


Can you explain why are you sure that *only* RDF is linked data?


> An HTML page pointing to a CSV file is _not_ Linked Data, because it's not
> _data_ linking to data.
>

HTML can contain RDF (RDFa, RDFs lite, Turtle etc.) yet also point to a CSV.


>
> Even an XML file which points to a CSV or XML file (which is, sort of,
> data linking to data) isn't Linked Data,


XHTML+RDFa is linked data for example, I use it on my home page.


> because the XML isn't universally interpretable (innovations such as XLink
> aside), enough that a machine can follow its nose.
>

Sure it can.  There's many forms of XML that a machine can understand and
follow your nose.  OpenID / OAuth are systems widely deployed on the web
that can do this.


>
> It is a fallacy to say 'I have data, and I have linked to it; therefore I
> am deploying Linked Data and am officially k00l' (I'm not necessarily
> saying, Nathan, that this was your claim).  It is a fallacy because it
> misses the point.  The Linked Data key claim is (as I would characterise
> it) that the set of features that made the human-readable web so very
> successful are almost exactly portable to the machine-readable web if, _and
> only if_, you s/HTML/RDF/.
>

HTML and RDF are not analogous.  And he web is not entirely HTML.  If
someone independently invented RDF, but called it something else, it should
be ineroperable.


>
> > Pointless, or are you going to do trademark the term and sue anybody who
> uses it to refer to anything other than RDF?
>
> It's not a matter of trademarking, but that arbitrary terminological
> freedom destroys communication.  Humpty Dumpty be damned: if 'linked data'
> means whatever the speaker wants it to mean, today, then it doesn't mean
> anything stable,  and so it's useless, so the term should be abandoned.
>

All words have a subjective element, the conclusion should not be to throw
them out.


>
> 'Linked Data' is a good label for a key concept (machine-readable web =
> human-readable web + s/HTML/RDF/).
>
> All the best,
>
> Norman
>

Note: much of the above is playing devil's advocate, it's not intended to
be confrontational.  I did enjoy reading your comments.  I do think it's
fascinating that this topic has an orthodoxy associated with it, that it
would be useful to challenge.


>
>
> --
> Norman Gray  :  http://nxg.me.uk
> SUPA School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Glasgow, UK
>
>
>