Re: Proof: Linked Data does not require RDF

On 19 June 2013 14:09, Hugh Glaser <hg@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:

> Firstly, having now read the threads, I thank you all for a lot of very
> interesting and thoughtful words.
> Also, as best I can describe what I think, it seems that David Booth has
> eloquently said much of what I would say.
>
> I'm not sure if there are many people still reading these threads, but,
> just diving in by responding to Norman's message, I think the answer does
> matter somewhat (hence I asked it), although not necessarily because of the
> two strands Norman mentions.
>
> The question I sort of thought I was asking was indeed a social one.
> And very personal.
> I want to discuss stuff about Linked Data (with capitals) in a forum with
> other people who share sufficiently similar views of what Linked Data means
> so that the discussion is productive etc..
> To me, if Linked Data does not (at the moment) assume that RDF is
> involved, whatever that might mean, then the discussion is unlikely to be
> productive, and can actually be quite destructive. This is because of a
> constant widening of issues, rather than focussing on the primary topics.
> The threads (plus personal emails) give me a sense that there is a
> majority who would like to avoid taking the discussions outside the RDF
> world, but that there is a vocal minority who will resist this at all costs.
>
> I actually think that the question we are trying to answer is what is the
> scope of this list.
> In a strong sense, Linked Data is what *we* decide it is; we don't have to
> worry about history, or anything like that (sunk costs), but what we want
> it to be now. That is, for the LOD list - we certainly have no control over
> what others might mean by it, any more than Engineers in the UK have
> control over the fact that the person who fixes the home appliances is
> commonly referred to as an engineer, or Xerox have control over people
> using the term in common speech to mean copy (or Hoover, etc.).
> But we can try to organise our community (exceptionally fragile as it is),
> so that we can have productive discussions around what a core of people
> want to discuss under the term Linked Data.
>
> So what should I do? - Remember, I said this was personal.
>
> Well, if the vocal minority decide that they cannot choose to narrow the
> view they have of Linked Data to exclude the more general stuff, so that
> discussions are focussed around stuff that assumes RDF, then I will
> obviously withdraw.
> That's fine with me, although I think it will be a shame.
> There is another list (Semweb) that will be a better sole home.
> Of course, an alternative would be to have a new list, on W3C or
> elsewhere, such as Google groups.
> This would be for Linked Data discussion, with a current assumption of RDF.
> We could even call it Linked Data, as opposed to Linked Open Data, which
> would actually more accurately describe what gets discussed, in some sense.
>

This was a brand discussion about LD based on some text in a spec.
Thankfully, that issue is now resolved.

I think it's clear that this list is about Linked Open Data, and everyone
will have a nuanced view on that, based on their own experience and
preference.

If you feel very strongly on this issue (I dont think most do), the W3C has
a good mechanism for any set of topics in the form of community groups, you
just need an audience (at least 5) and a chair.


>
> Best to you all
> Hugh
>
> On 19 Jun 2013, at 12:33, Norman Gray <norman@astro.gla.ac.uk>
>  wrote:
>
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
>
>
>