Re: Proof: Linked Data does not require RDF

On 6/18/13 7:32 PM, エリクソン トーレ wrote:
>> 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.

Put differently, you produce more useful Linked Data via RDF. That's 
something that easily demonstrable too!

>
> 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.

Nobody is claiming that Linked Data is incompatible with RDF. The point 
being made is that you can produce Linked Data, that 100% compliant with 
TimBL's original Linked Data meme, without any knowledge or use of RDF. 
That's all. None of that implies RDF is useless etc.. It simply means 
that Linked Data and RDF aren't the same thing.

Linked Data and RDF have a mutually beneficial association.
>
> Tore
>
> * I wouldn't consider linked data with untyped links usefuld, but I
>    guess some people might...

Nobody has made any claims of that kind.

BTW -- What is an untyped link? As far as I know there aren't any 
untyped Links on the World Wide Web, it just so happens that the 
semantics of the relations denoted by said links aren't necessarily 
machine-comprehensible  (or interpretable) :-)


-- 

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