- From: Barry Norton <barry.norton@ontotext.com>
- Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 14:30:01 +0100
- To: public-lod@w3.org
On a serious note, the day this list starts responding to a request "I want to do Linked Data, am I using HTTP correctly?" like the REST community 'FOOLISH MORTAL, REST [/LINKED DATA] IS NOT TIED TO HTTP' is the day I lose interest. Barry On 17/06/13 14:12, Barry Norton wrote: > Now that we've established, whatever TimBL's Note says, that Linked > Data doesn't require SPARQL, RDF or HTTP it's time we talked about the > elephant in the room: URIs. > > A thought experiment (literally): in my brain is a lot of knowledge - > 'metadata' if you will - connected up in a graph. I can't read someone > else's thoughts, in the form of a writing - whether it's a book with > an ISBN (and hence a URI), or a crudely drawn message on a bathroom > wall - and integrate that into the graph. > > Sure, I don't produce RDF, or speak HTTP, very easily, and my thoughts > don't have global identifiers, but the whole beauty of Linked Data is > that it is loosely coupled to computers anyway. > > What conclusion do I draw? > > I've seen it. It's people. > > Linked Data is made out of people. > > LINKED DATA IS PEOPLE. > > WE'VE GOT TO STOP THEM... SOMEHOW! > > Barry (you can't throw me to the lions - I'm Charlton Heston) >
Received on Monday, 17 June 2013 13:30:30 UTC