Re: Proof: Linked Data does not require RDF

On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 23:32:42 +0000, エリクソン　トーレ <t-eriksson@so.taisho.co.jp> said:

    > 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.


    @prefix ex: <http://example.org/>
    @prefix u: <http://example.org/units>

    ex:distance ex:earth ex:moon 381550 25150 u:km.

This relation has a typed link (ex:distance) between two
non-informational resources (ex:earth, ex:moon). It has a distance
that has units as well as a datatype, and a +/- uncertainty thrown in
for good measure. I could even imagine the ex:distance predicate to be
self-describing in the usual way, defining its arity and the meaning
and type of its arguments.

I think this can quite sensibly be called Linked Data and whilst with
sufficient contortions (reification, abuse of datatypes, perhaps
anonymous or parametrised predicates) it can be shoehorned into RDF,
it really doesn't happen naturally or obviously enough that it could
be called "compatible" in my opinion.

Happy hacking,
-w

Received on Wednesday, 19 June 2013 12:03:14 UTC