Re: Linked Data discussions require better communication


I agree with Luca's viewpoint. The W3C standard RDF model (a.k.a triple
model) is one of most fundamental piece of the technology stack defining
Linked Data (along with URIs and HTTP). I think it is important to make
understand the community that Linked Data  can be serialized into different
representations (Turtle, RDF/XML, JSON-LD, N3, NTriples, TrigG, and any
future formats) , as long as they are isomorphic to RDF model (meaning data
can be converted to a set of triples and identifiers are based on URIs). If
the data are NOT convertible to RDF model, I do not consider it as Linked
Data.  To make the system works, you need some set of standards on which
everyone agree: HTTP, URIs, RDF are fundamental to Linked Data.  Saying we
do not need RDF model for Linked Data is like saying we do not need URL or
HTTP for the web of documents.

Stephane Fellah

On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 11:45 AM, Luca Matteis <> wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Melvin Carvalho <
> > wrote:
>> Restate/reflect ideas that in other posts that are troubling/puzzling and
>> ask for confirmation or clarification.
> I am simply confused with the idea brought forward by Kingsley that RDF is
> *not* part of the definition of Linked Data. The evidence shows the
> contrary: the top sites that define Linked Data, such as Wikipedia,
> and Tim-BL's meme specifically mention RDF, for example:
> "It builds upon standard Web technologies such as HTTP, RDF and URIs" -
> "connecting pieces of data, information, and knowledge on the Semantic Web
> using URIs and RDF." -
> This is *the only thing* that I'm discussing here. Nothing else. The
> current *definition* of Linked Data.
>> Restate the actual subject and focus of the discussion; the subject line
>> just doesnít always cut it.
> Again the subject line is the *definition* of the term Linked Data. More
> specifically whether it includes (or should include) RDF.
> Do more explication with the awareness that we might be talking about two
>> (or more!) related but separate ideas/concepts. Or we could be using the
>> same terms but with slightly different definitions.
> I want to concentrate on the current definition of the Linked Data term.
> Why do the main sites built from the Linked Data community *strictly*
> describe RDF as one of the main technologies that enable Linked Data?
>> Define the terms inline rather than just linking out. Oneís
>> interpretation of an external standard or specification could be different
>> from someone elseís, so I think it would be good to own it.
> I simply think RDF is part of Linked Data's definition, because of the
> evidence I have shown above. If this is not the case, we should discuss it
> as a community. If we decide that RDF is *not* part of the definition of
> Linked Data, we should probably remove it from all the top sites, otherwise
> it will create confusion for newcomers.
> Also we should make new Linked Data coffee mugs ;-)
> Luca

Received on Thursday, 20 June 2013 16:50:49 UTC