Re: Linked Data discussions require better communication

On 06/20/2013 02:09 PM, Ted Thibodeau Jr wrote:
> <>
> Discussing 5-star Linked Open Data (2010 addition to this
> document created in 2006) --
>> ★        Available on the web (whatever format) but with
>>            an open licence, to be Open Data
>> ★★       Available as machine-readable structured data
>>            (e.g. excel instead of image scan of a table)
>> ★★★      as (2) plus non-proprietary format (e.g. CSV
>>             instead of excel)
>> ★★★★    All the above plus, Use open standards from W3C
>>             (RDF and SPARQL) to identify things, so that
>>             people can point at your stuff
>> ★★★★★  All the above, plus: Link your data to other
>>             people’s data to provide context
> Now...  RDF doesn't come in until you get a 4-star rating.
> Are all you folks who are arguing that Linked Data *mandates*
> RDF suggesting that 1-, 2-, and 3-star rated Linked Open Data
> is *not* Linked Data?

Exactly.  Read the criteria above for the stars, and think about it. 
Suppose a JPEG image is placed on the web with an open license.  Would 
it make any sense to call it "Linked Open Data", just because it meets 
the criteria for one star?  Certainly not, as that would render the term 
completely meaningless.  And as a second example, notice that linking 
only comes into play with *five* stars: data meeting the first four 
stars is not even linked!  It would not any make sense at all to call 
something "4-star Linked Open Data" if it is not even linked!

The only sensible interpretation of the stars is that they indicate 
milestones of progress *toward* "Linked Open Data" -- *not* that there 
are five levels of Linked Open Data.


Received on Friday, 21 June 2013 14:16:19 UTC