Re: Proof: Linked Data does not require RDF

On 6/18/13 3:41 AM, Michael Brunnbauer wrote:
> hi all,
>
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 12:44:23AM -0400, David Booth wrote:
>> ... if there is a standards-based
>> way to interpret it as RDF, then it qualifies as Linked Data.
> +1
>
> This looks like a nice definition of Linked Data to me.
-1

It's broken.

It only palatable in the context of a W3C spec. Again, this debate isn't 
about how the W3C defines Linked Data in its specs. This is about a 
fundamental concept associated with structured data representation.

Again, the fact that this list is hosted on a W3C server doesn't mean 
that when we speak about the concept of Linked Data we are automatically 
discussing a W3C world view. FWIW this list didn't start off as a W3C 
hosted list.
>
> Regards,
>
> Michael Brunnbauer
>


-- 

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

Received on Tuesday, 18 June 2013 12:19:17 UTC