Re: Proof: Linked Data does not require RDF

Kingsley and all, hello.

On 2013 Jun 18, at 11:51, Kingsley Idehen wrote:

> As already stated in an earlier post, I don't understand why "inference" and "reasoning" are words that are no longer associated (instinctively) with RDF as unique selling points. Being able to make increasingly precise sense of data (based on its entity relationship based structure) is a major virtue!

Because they're very poor selling points for most people.

For SW people, and _some_ techies, reasoning is a plus; for most people, including most techies, it's just confusing technobabble.  That part of the sales pitch might as well be in swahili -- you'd do as well trying to sell a family car based on the number of megaflops in the engine-management system; you're more likely to put people off rather than reel them in.

However inference and ubiquity/interoperability are separate and independent selling points, and people _do_ get the latter.  For me, the LD practice means I can frame a clear and consistent interoperability story for RDF (perhaps with some light inference as a neat trick), leaving the heavy reasoning -- which is valuable for the reasons you say -- to a later and separate SW pitch.

All the best,


Norman Gray  :
SUPA School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Glasgow, UK

Received on Tuesday, 18 June 2013 11:15:51 UTC