Re: Linked Data discussions require better communication

On 6/20/13 2:27 PM, David Booth wrote:
> On 06/20/2013 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
> Remember: if the data is not standards-based interpretable as RDF 
> (though it doesn't have to *look* like RDF) then it does not support 
> the goal of the Semantic Web, because it creates walled gardens, as 
> explained in more detail here:
> I prefer a definition of "Linked Data" that supports the goal of the 
> Semantic Web.  I would venture to guess that that was the entire 
> reason that TimBL coined the term: to support the goals of the 
> Semantic Web.
> David

I am not trying to push a canonical definition of a generic phrase. What 
I am pushing though, is the ability to look at Linked Data and RDF 
through the kind of lenses illustrated in my Venn diagram. Basically, 
that you don't need knowledge or appreciation of RDF in order to produce 
Linked Data.

In addition to the above, RDF makes Linked Data interpretable to 
applications and services that can process RDF.

The Semantic Web isn't about prospective hard definitions of Linked 
Data, RDF, etc.. just as the World Wide Web isn't about prospective hard 
definitions of HTML. If you recall, I made reference to the "view 
source" pattern [2] (in an earlier post) as being instrumental to the 
World Wide Web's bootstrap i.e., everyone ended up using HTML because 
Mozilla/Netscape produced an app based on a pattern that stimulated and 
leveraged the crowd, en route to critical mass.


1. -- illustrating how Linked Data and RDF are 
2. -- "view source" pattern and the World Wide 
Web's bootstrap.



Kingsley Idehen	
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web:
Personal Weblog:
Twitter/ handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile:
LinkedIn Profile:

Received on Thursday, 20 June 2013 19:22:55 UTC