- From: Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>
- Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 09:58:39 +0200
- To: Gregg Reynolds <dev@mobileink.com>
- Cc: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, Linking Open Data <public-lod@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAK4ZFVGAWOJOxEKLMRBMdai2X-EkbbMAzPo6jPeSATeTOAuk3w@mail.gmail.com>
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" http://www.thezensite.com/ZenEssays/Philosophical/Horse.html Bernard 2013/6/14 Gregg Reynolds <dev@mobileink.com> > On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 12:20 PM, David Booth <david@dbooth.org> wrote: > > -------- Original Message -------- > > Subject: Ending the Linked Data debate -- PLEASE VOTE *NOW*! > > Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 13:19:27 -0400 > > From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org> > > To: community, Linked <public-lod@w3.org> > > > > > In normal usage within the Semantic Web community, > > does the term "Linked Data" imply the use of RDF? > > > > PLEASE VOTE NOW at > > 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