- From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 13:31:01 -0400
- To: public-lod@w3.org
- Message-ID: <51BB5355.5060308@openlinksw.com>
On 6/14/13 4:36 AM, Sarven Capadisli wrote: > "Explain Linked Data to me like I'm 5" > > Gather the answers, classify etc. The definition that's perceived by > the community may not necessarily be "this" or "that" regardless of > the recent discussions. > > > Aside: Personally I think this discussion is important as long as > there is a visible outcome for the better. It hits a pet-peeve of mine > and others. For instance, if we go with the strict SemWeb, RDF and > friends view of "Linked Data", the public-lod and semantic-web mailing > lists are practically hijacked with announcements that requests > research paper submissions to be in PDF. Apparently the community is > cool with the idea that as long as the calls are made by gatherings > with "Semantic Web" or "Linked Data" in their title, they can have a > go with whatever is suitable for them. What this tells me is that, on > one hand some (majority?) of the SW/LD community loves to side with > the most recent definition of TimBL's DesignIssues/LinkedData, on > another they are willing to cut corners and look the other way when it > truly comes to eating their own dogfood. > > So, can anyone explain to me what is the real-world implication of > having the definition one way or another especially when the SW/LD > community has a difficulty getting its act together to stick to those > "guidelines"? > > -Sarven +1 -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Founder & CEO OpenLink Software Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
Attachments
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Received on Friday, 14 June 2013 17:31:23 UTC