RE: Linked Data discussions require better communication

As I read it, Kingsley (and TimBL) are arguing that Linked Data is a two dimensional axis with 4 "steps/principles" on one axis and 5 "stars" on the other. In contrast, why do other people assume that Linked Data must be binary yes or no? I may be reading both of these people wrong, but in the end who cares what they think as long as it makes sense to me?

From: David Booth
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 8:02:28 PM
To: Kingsley Idehen
Cc: Ted Thibodeau Jr; Luca Matteis; Melvin Carvalho; Courtney, Paul K.;
Subject: Re: Linked Data discussions require better communication

On 06/21/2013 10:25 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> On 6/21/13 10:15 AM, David Booth wrote:
[ . . . ]
>> 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?

Because just as the goals of the web cannot be achieved by having "a
journey toward URIs", the goals of the Semantic Web cannot be achieved
by having "a journey toward RDF".  RDF is *fundamental* to the Semantic
Web, just as URIs are *fundamental* to the Web.  RDF is the universal
data model that enables Semantic Web data to be meaningfully combined by
automated applications.  That *cannot* be done without either: (a) a
boat load of artificial intelligence and processing power that is out of
reach of most mortals; (b) a dramatic new discovery that the world has
not yet seen; or (c) a universal data model.

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

Nobody has claimed that people must be *aware* of RDF for a document to
be standards-interpretable as RDF.  Indeed, it seems very likely that
*many* JSON-LD users will be unaware that JSON-LD is actually RDF in
addition to being JSON.  The important point is just that the data *be*
standards-interpretable as RDF.  Whether or not it *looks* to the
untrained eye like RDF is quite irrelevant.

> BTW -- I still don't know if you accept the world view outlined in my
> venn diagram [1]. I don't want to misquote you, so at the very least,
> could you confirm if you agree with the venn diagram or not.

No, I do not.


> Links:
> 1. -- how Structured Data (Linked Data), Predicate
> Logic (RDF), and Identifiers (URIs) are related.

Received on Saturday, 22 June 2013 01:25:43 UTC