Re: Linked Data discussions require better communication

On 21 June 2013 17:32, Stephane Fellah <> wrote:

> I agree with you David. Unfortunately the title of rating system (Linked
> Open Data) is often misinterpreted.
> The first 3 stars are really describing Open Data. The last two are really
> Linked Data. A better title could be: "From Data to Linked Data" . I often
> used the term of "Infocline" to describe the migration from data to
> knowledge

Well if you're going to change the text of the document, it's not going to
be that hard to get it to conform to your world view.  Perhaps you find
this hard to countenance, but please do appreciate that others may not
share your world view.  The web has always been more about tolerance that
it has about dogma.  The paradox of the whole thing is that tolerance
brings people together, and imposing your opinion on others moves people
apart.  If you feel strongly about rewording the linked data document,
perhaps start another thread and it may gain some traction.  But as this
thread was about communication, let's try and be civil and get along :)

> Stephane
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 10:15 AM, David Booth <> wrote:
>> On 06/20/2013 02:09 PM, Ted Thibodeau Jr wrote:
>>> <**DesignIssues/LinkedData.html<>
>>> >
>>> 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.
>> David

Received on Friday, 21 June 2013 15:43:12 UTC