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

Some speak about "linked data", and other speak about "linked" and "data".
How can they possibly agree?

This is really a very old debate, and it can go forever
"A white horse is not a horse"


2013/6/14 Gregg Reynolds <>

> 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. ;)
> -Gregg

Received on Friday, 14 June 2013 07:59:30 UTC