Re: Proof: Linked Data does not require RDF

On 06/19/2013 02:29 AM, エリクソン トーレ wrote:
> 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.

+1

The data does not have to *look* like RDF to *be* (interpretable as) 
RDF.  But to support the goal of the Semantic Web, it is important 
*specifically* that the data be interpretable as RDF.

As I pointed out before:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lod/2013Jun/0208.html
[[
 > Why does RDF need to be the standard universal information
 > model?  not because it is perfect, but because *some*
 > standard universal information model is needed, and that is
 > the one that was chosen, just as URIs were chosen to be the
 > standard universal identification convention.  [ . . . ]
 >
 > why couldn't other sufficiently powerful information models
 > achieve the same Semantic Web goal just as well, and be used
 > in addition to RDF?  Because that would fragment the web.
 > instead of one web we would have many webs, each one its
 > own walled garden, and that is not [the] Semantic Web goal.
 > without a shared information model, client applications
 > would not be able to meaningfully combine the data from
 > those walled gardens.
]]

David

Received on Wednesday, 19 June 2013 19:42:01 UTC