- From: Norman Gray <norman@astro.gla.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 12:33:30 +0100
- To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Cc: public-lod@w3.org
Kingsley and all, hello.
On 2013 Jun 19, at 12:06, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> The issues at hand are as follows:
>
> 1. Is RDF the only option for producing Linked Data that's 100% compliant with TimBL's original meme?
> 2. Are RDF and Linked Data tightly or loosely coupled?
Those are good and clear, but I think a third issue is:
3. Do the answers matter?
There seem to be two strands in this thread (which I think has now spread across multiple lists). One strand is concerned to devise a precise definition of what Linked Data means, and hence what's included in, and excluded from, the definition (call this the 'technical strand'); the other is content to see Linked Data as a rather 'softer' or vaguer thing, concerned with rhetoric, exposition or dissemination (call this the 'sociotechnical strand').
* For the technical strand, of course the answers matter, because how else can you decide whether something is compliant with TimBL's meme (I'm not sure that memes include conformance clauses, but we can let that pass...!). Hence discussion of reasoning, logic, expressiveness, 'overtly RDF', your Venn diagram, and so on.
* From the point of view of the sociotechnical strand, the answers don't matter ('distinction without a difference'), because these are non-questions, because 'linked data' isn't something that can be complied with or not. Or, put another way, concluding that something is or is not officially Linked Data doesn't imply anything important.
I think there's a certain amount of talking past one another in this thread, because arguments in one strand seem muddled or even mischievous when viewed from the other.
Does this help this thread at all?
All the best,
Norman
--
Norman Gray : http://nxg.me.uk
SUPA School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Glasgow, UK
Received on Wednesday, 19 June 2013 11:33:59 UTC