Re: Proof: Linked Data does not require RDF from Luca Matteis on 2013-06-18 (public-lod@w3.org from June 2013)

From: Luca Matteis <lmatteis@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 09:59:49 +0200
To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
Cc: ProjectParadigm-ICT-Program <metadataportals@yahoo.com>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>, David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CALp38EOZ99MNq0m-k4kbm2APucW6m0=m-=Ezp2ZQ52iMQ4Z4MA@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 7:01 AM, David Booth <david@dbooth.org> wrote:

> That completely misses the point of this debate.  The debate is not about
> whether there are other ways of linking data.  It is about the meaning of
> the term "Linked Data" **as a term of art**.  It is often capitalized as
> Linked Data to emphasize that it has special meaning (as a term of art)
> beyond just "data that is linked".

+1

Actually I wish this entire discussion would be on G+ or HackerNews so we
could up-vote each answer and actually see the entire trend of the
discussion.

Received on Tuesday, 18 June 2013 08:00:25 UTC