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

On Jun 18, 2013, at 09:24 AM, 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:

As several others (not all extremely vocal, though a visible 
minority) have said, that poll was very poorly designed.

It was written to force your desired answer, and fails to
make any point except that "good survey design is hard."

I'd like to see the results of a well-designed survey on the 
subject, particularly if it is answered by a random group of 
people who haven't necessarily been privy to the ongoing 
debates -- optimally including people from a range of 
industries and disciplines, academic and otherwise...

Unfortunately, good survey is to me like much product design
was to Steve Jobs.  I know it when I see it, and I can provide
useful tweaks, but I am hard-pressed to spec it out beforehand.

Be seeing you,


A: Yes.            
| Q: Are you sure?
| | A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
| | | Q: Why is top posting frowned upon?

Ted Thibodeau, Jr.           //               voice +1-781-273-0900 x32
Senior Support & Evangelism  //
OpenLink Software, Inc.      //    
         10 Burlington Mall Road, Suite 265, Burlington MA 01803
     Weblog   --
     LinkedIn --
     Twitter  --
     Google+  --
     Facebook --
Universal Data Access, Integration, and Management Technology Providers

Received on Tuesday, 18 June 2013 17:13:36 UTC