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

On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 12:20 PM, David Booth <> wrote:
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Ending the Linked Data debate -- PLEASE VOTE *NOW*!
> Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 13:19:27 -0400
> From: David Booth <>
> To: community, Linked <>

>     In normal usage within the Semantic Web community,
>     does the term "Linked Data" imply the use of RDF?

Hate to rain on your parade, but I can't resist, since I've spent the
past two years researching survey design, validity, etc. which I
pretty much hated all the way, but you've innocently given me a chance
to use some of that knowledge.  The likelihood that this will question
will produce valid data that can be unambiguously interpreted is
pretty close to zero.  It's a pretty well-established fact that even
the simplest questions - e.g. how many children do you have? - will be
misinterpreted by an astonishingly large number of respondents
(approaching 50% if I recall).  In this case, given the intrinsic
ambiguity of the question ("normal", "imply", etc.) and the high
degree of education and intelligence of the respondents, I predict
that if 50 people respond there will be at least 51 different
interpretations of the question.  In other words they are all highly
likely to be responding to different questions.  Which means you won't
be able to draw any valid conclusions.

Here's an obvious example:  is "normal usage" descriptive or
evaluative?  In other words, does it refer to the fact of how people
do use it, or to a norm of how they ought to use it?  Somebody
strongly committed one way or the other could claim that "normal"
usage is just the usage they favor - people who don't in fact use it
that way are weirdos and deviants, even if they're in the majority.
So your question is inherently ambiguous, and that's not counting
problems with "Semantic Web community", etc.

Besides, you omitted the "Refused to answer" option. ;)


Received on Friday, 14 June 2013 06:05:40 UTC