Re: Linked Data discussions require better communication

On 6/21/13 10:25 AM, "Kingsley Idehen" <<>> alleged:

On 6/21/13 10:15 AM, David Booth wrote:
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.


That makes sense. Thus, why can't you accept the same thinking if we
look at RDF unique selling points as part of such a journey too?

What's wrong with folks arriving at points in the continuum where RDF's
virtues kick-in without actually being aware of RDF?

Kingsley, I really don’t know what you mean by this statement. What does it mean for someone to arrive at a point where RDF’s virtues kick in without being aware of RDF? Do you mean that someone might come up with another syntax for a triple that replicates the subject-predicate-object relationship? If so, so what? What is the actionable part of this possibility?


Paul K. Courtney, MS
Applications Specialist/Biomedical Informaticist
Information Systems
Dana-Farber Cancer Institute
T: 617.582.7389
C: 603.727.8171
F: 617.632.4030

The information in this e-mail is intended only for the person to whom it is
addressed. If you believe this e-mail was sent to you in error and the e-mail
contains patient information, please contact the Partners Compliance HelpLine at . If the e-mail was sent to you in error
but does not contain patient information, please contact the sender and properly
dispose of the e-mail.

Received on Friday, 21 June 2013 19:43:30 UTC