Re: Proof: Linked Data does not require RDF

On 6/19/13 6:11 PM, Damian Steer wrote:
> On 19 Jun 2013, at 22:36, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote:
>
>> You are trying to shy away from "inference" and "reasoning" (key RDF features)
> Inference and reasoning are not key features of RDF. I'm reasonably sure most apache jena users aren't using reasoning engines, and they still find utility in RDF as a schemaless web-aware graph model.
>
> Damian*

To be more precise, relative to basic Linked Data, "inference" and 
"reasoning" are distinguishing RDF features. If not, how would you 
distinguish Linked Data and RDF?

Note, David Booth has made it clear in one of his more recent responses 
that he isn't claiming that Linked Data and RDF are indistinguishable. I 
believe he is claiming that RDF makes Linked Data interpretable. If so, 
how does one achieve the aforementioned goal without being able to 
reason on the semantics of the entity relationships represented by a 
3-tuple (or triple) based propositional statements?

As for thread extension, note, we haven't even opened up the SPARQL can 
of worms re., Linked Data.

To cut a long story short, I am simply trying to highlight the fact that 
RDF and SPARQL are simply implementation details re. Linked Data. They 
can be used to produce Linked Data, but not uniquely so.

Kingsley
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> * who apologises for extending this thread
>
>


-- 

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