Re: Proof: Linked Data does not require RDF

> -----元のメッセージ-----
> 差出人: Kingsley Idehen [mailto:kidehen@openlinksw.com]
> 送信日時: 2013年6月19日 10:25
> On 6/18/13 7:32 PM, エリクソン トーレ wrote:
>> 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.

My point was that even if the data producer doesn't know anything about
RDF, when applying the meme he will produce something that follows
the RDF abstract syntax. That is the strength of RDF and why I think
it is an intrinsic part of Linked Data. The exact semantics of RDF,
its typed literals and blank nodes may be hard to explain, but the
basic concept is not. Neither is it unique to RDF, as you pointed
out elswere,

>> * I wouldn't consider linked data with untyped links useful, 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) :-)

For me HTML 4.1 links lacking a @rel or @rev are untyped. I suppose
you could type them implicitly as rdfs:seeAlso or something similar.
I also ment to include typed links where the type lacks, as you say, 
(RDF-)specified semantics. 

Tore Eriksson

Received on Wednesday, 19 June 2013 06:30:10 UTC