Re: 返: Proof: Linked Data does not require RDF

On 06/18/2013 03:24 PM, David Booth wrote:
> On 06/18/2013 08:29 AM, Luca Matteis wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 2:15 PM, Kingsley Idehen <
>> <>> wrote:
>>     Luckily, I believe only a minority of folks hold the distorted views
>>     you continue to espouse in this debate.
>> I actually believe the opposite. That's why I wish emails had +1 in them.
> Indeed, the results of this poll on the meaning of the term Linked Data
> are pretty clear, though I'm sure an extremely vocal minority will swear
> up and down that they are meaningless:
> The original poll was posted here:

Hi David, with all due respect, as mentioned earlier, the poll doesn't 
reveal anything other than the number of people that clicked a bunch of 
buttons. Practically speaking, the answer is "yes" when the question is 
phrased that way. I don't think anyone (most?) is disputing that here, 
but its take away, if any.

However, on the mailing list, I feel that everyone is responding to two 
different questions. One camp is looking at "Linked Data" as closely 
tied to RDF, and another as something broader, more towards the "weaving 
the web" vision. There is no conflict here as I see it but a strong need 
for clarity and patience in these discussions.

In order to learn from one another, I'd like to invite all to describe 
Linked Data using their own words. It might actually reveal more about 
what we understand as a community (as opposed to a poll with fixed 
answers), and then figure out how to communicate better. If I'm not 
being overly presumptuous, we are all on the same boat at the end of the 
day :)

Explain Linked Data Like I'm Five:


Received on Tuesday, 18 June 2013 14:04:44 UTC