Re: Linked Data discussions require better communication

On 6/21/13 3:42 PM, Courtney, Paul K. wrote:
>     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?

It means that you can experience the utility of something without being 
preoccupied with a label. You can indeed experience the virtues of RDF, 
the Semantic Web etc.. without necessarily caring about those labels. 
All you have to do is follow the principles inherent in the Web's 
architecture combined with other things such as enhancing the 
constituency of the data with logic.
> 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?

I don't mean that at all. At the same time why do you think that RDF 
invented what you outline re. subject->predicate-object? If you believe 
that to be true, then we can open up a thread on that. It might just be 
that this is where the misconception lies i.e., the fact that 
subject->predicate->object based entity relationship representation is a 
distinguishing feature of RDF, when in fact it isn't.

As stated above, you can open up a thread titled: is 
subject->predicate->object a formalism for structured data 
representation that's unique to RDF? I would have even provide you with 
some links that demonstrate my point, but that could easily be 
misconstrued as being out of context etc..



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

Received on Friday, 21 June 2013 21:38:10 UTC