- From: エリクソン トーレ <t-eriksson@so.taisho.co.jp>
- Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 23:32:42 +0000
- To: "'Melvin Carvalho'" <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- CC: Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
> 差出人: Melvin Carvalho [mailto:melvincarvalho@gmail.com] > 送信日時: 2013年6月18日 20:59 > 1. Linked Data MAY be RDF. > > NOT > > 2. Linked Data MUST be RDF. > > I think any attempts to rebrand LD as enforcing the latter is likely to > be unsuccessful, and perhaps even an unproductive use of time. > > I think most people have a pretty good intuition of the terms, and how > to use them to achieve interop, and get work done. An addendum to 1.: 1.1. However, useful* linked data will always be directly mappable to RDF. I would be interested in seeing some linked data that is incompatible with RDF while still adhering to rules like using global identifiers and typed links. Tore * I wouldn't consider linked data with untyped links usefuld, but I guess some people might...
Received on Tuesday, 18 June 2013 23:33:49 UTC