Re: Linked Data discussions require better communication

On 20 June 2013 18:54, Giovanni Tummarello <giovanni.tummarello@deri.org> 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 marked up
> pages would be linked data .. and i agree plenty with this .

Schema.org pages are already RDF and imho Linked Data, as was FOAF
even when (shock horror!) the graph contains bNodes. Nothing in
TimBL's original note _forces_ you to always use URIs for every node
in the graph. It does advocate strongly for lots of URIs and for
machine-friendly data available from using them.

To be clear, Schema.org is based on RDF. We just choose our moments
for when to emphasize this, and when to focus on other practicalities.

I'd draw an analogy with Unicode. It's there in the background and
helps tie things together, even if you don't always need to be
emphasizing it when talking about things that use it.

Dan

Received on Friday, 21 June 2013 16:34:04 UTC