Re: List etiquette [was Re: Proof: Linked Data does not require RDF]

On 6/19/13 5:21 PM, David Booth wrote:
> On 06/19/2013 08:33 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>> Maybe subject of another thread, but this is your fundamental
>> assumption: every one that subscribes to this list assumes that Linked
>> Data and RDF are one and the same thing.
>
> Kingsley, it has been REPEATEDLY pointed out to you that neither I nor 
> (AFAICT) *anyone* else on this list believe that Linked Data and RDF 
> are "one and the same thing".  And yet you continue to make this 
> blatantly false claim.  PLEASE STOP!!!
>
> Please have the professional integrity to avoid such obviously false 
> characterizations of other people's positions.  They are destructive 
> to what could otherwise be a legitimate debate about how this 
> community chooses to define the term "Linked Data".  And they are 
> DAMNED ANNOYING.
>
> The only way we are going to make constructive progress on this list 
> is if those with differing views honestly try to *understand* those 
> differing views and attempt to address them *accurately*, rather than 
> repeatedly making provocative misleading caricatures of them.
>
> Thank you,
> David
>
>
>
>
>

David,

Where do we differ? Please make this clear in your own words. I will 
then respond. Again, you can keep the tone civil this is a debate. 
Hopefully, there will be a positive outcome for at least one of us.

BTW -- I also have a reply to your earlier mail where I specifically 
point out where I disagree with the manner in which you are framing the 
relationship between RDF and Linked Data. That post might be helpful 
here too.


-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen