Re: Linked Data discussions require better communication

On 6/21/13 9:25 PM, Young,Jeff (OR) wrote:
> 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?


You are reading me accurately!

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



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

Received on Saturday, 22 June 2013 13:02:44 UTC