Re: Linked Data discussions require better communication

On 6/20/13 12:54 PM, Giovanni Tummarello wrote:
> My 2c is .. i agree with kingsley diagram , linked data should be 
> possible without RDF (no matter serialization) :)
> however this is different from previous definitions
>
> i think its a step forward.. but it is different from previously. Do 
> we want to call it  Linked Data 2.0? under this definition also 
> schema.org <http://schema.org> marked up pages would be linked data .. 
> and i agree plenty with this .

We can reconcile my Venn back to: 
http://www.nic.funet.fi/index/FUNET/history/internet/w3c/Image1.gif . 
That diagram (original World Wide Web proposal) is an entity 
relationship graph. Every connection type is denoted albeit using 
literals due to the fact that URIs where a work-in-progress at that 
point or too distorting to insert into the high level proposal.

"describes", "unifies", "wrote", "includes" are literal denotations of 
different types of relations :-)


Kingsley
>
> Gio
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 6:27 PM, Kingsley Idehen 
> <kidehen@openlinksw.com <mailto:kidehen@openlinksw.com>> wrote:
>
>     On 6/20/13 11:45 AM, Luca Matteis wrote:
>>     On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Melvin Carvalho
>>     <melvincarvalho@gmail.com <mailto:melvincarvalho@gmail.com>> 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, Linkeddata.org and Tim-BL's meme
>>     specifically mention RDF, for example:
>>
>>     "It builds upon standard Web technologies such as HTTP, RDF and
>>     URIs" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linked_data
>>     "connecting pieces of data, information, and knowledge on the
>>     Semantic Web using URIs and RDF." - http://linkeddata.org/
>>
>>     This is *the only thing* that I'm discussing here. Nothing else.
>>     The current *definition* of Linked Data.
>
>     Here's what I am saying, again:
>
>     1. You can create and publish web-like structured data without any
>     knowledge of RDF .
>
>     2. You can create and publish web-like data that's enhanced with
>     human- and machine-comprehensible entity relationship semantics
>     when you add RDF to the mix.
>
>     Venn diagram based Illustration of my point: http://bit.ly/16EVFVG .
>
>     If you want your Linked Data to be interpretable by machine, then
>     you can achieve that goal via RDF based Linked Data and
>     applications equipped with RDF processing capability.
>
>     RDF entity relationship semantics are *explicit* whereas
>     run-of-the-mill entity relationship model based entity
>     relationship semantics are *implicit*.
>
>     RDF is the W3C's recommended framework for increasing the semantic
>     fidelity of relations that constitute the World Wide Web.
>
>     It isn't really that complicated.
>
>     RDF can be talked about usefully without inadvertently creating an
>     eternally distracting Reality Distortion Field, laden with
>     indefensible ambiguity.
>
>     -- 
>
>     Regards,
>
>     Kingsley Idehen	
>     Founder & CEO
>     OpenLink Software
>     Company Web:http://www.openlinksw.com
>     Personal Weblog:http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen  <http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/%7Ekidehen>
>     Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
>     Google+ Profile:https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
>     LinkedIn Profile:http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
>
>
>
>
>


-- 

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