Re: Fwd: The need for RDF in Linked Data

On 6/17/13 1:35 AM, David Booth wrote:
> If the term Linked Data is "hijacked" by a broader population
> to mean *any* sort of data that is linked -- not necessarily
> RDF -- then this will be a major loss to the Semantic Web
> community, because it is very hard to come up with simple ways
> to communicate the essence of the Semantic Web.  The Linked
> Data meme has been extremely helpful.  If the RDF component
> is lost, we will have lost the best meme we have ever had for
> explaining the Semantic Web.` 

It's possible to debate a matter without unnecessary use of inflammatory 
language. I would happily debate you any day about this subject matter, 
but I struggle with your choice of words.

Have you considered that "hijacked" is utterly unnecessary in this 
debate? Irrespective of who might be right or wrong, nobody is trying to 
hijack anything. Put differently, can you make a convincing case against 
that fact that by inserting RDF -- in immutable form -- into the Linked 
Data conversation (retrospectively) it could also be perceived by some 
as hijacking?

If you recall, your fundamental thesis is predicated on the notion that 
it took TimBL 3 years (between 2006 and 2009) to realize that he was 
inarticulate about RDF in all his prior Linked Data related memes.



Kingsley Idehen 
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web:
Personal Weblog:
Twitter/ handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile:
LinkedIn Profile:

Received on Monday, 17 June 2013 12:08:22 UTC