- From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 08:18:52 -0400
- To: public-lod@w3.org
- Message-ID: <51C0502C.5080006@openlinksw.com>
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
Attachments
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Received on Tuesday, 18 June 2013 12:19:17 UTC