# Re: What Does Point Number 3 of TimBL's Linked Data Mean?

• From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
• Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 07:41:41 -0400
• Message-ID: <51C981F5.4090709@openlinksw.com>
```On 6/25/13 12:19 AM, David Booth wrote:
>
> The problem is that some people are claiming that RDF is not a
> *necessary* component of Linked Data.

Loosely coupled does not mean *not necessary* it means what it says
i.e., RDF and Linked Data are loosely coupled. It isn't an "all or
nothing" proposition.

For the umpteenth time, I am asserting that you don't need to be
knowledgeable in RDF or be aware of its existence in order to produce
Linked Data. I've even illustrated my position in a venn [1] diagram
which showcases how Linked Data, RDF, and Predicate Logic are related.
I've also tweaked TimBL's original World Wide Web proposal diagram by
turning the literal identifiers into actual Linked Data URIs (just click
on the nodes or connectors to see what I mean) [2].

BTW -- you haven't answered the question about how one interprets RDF
without any "reasoning" and "inference".  Also note these excerpts from
a post made Pat Hayes posted in another thread about RDF:

"An RDF graph is true exactly when:

1. the IRIs and literals in subject or object position in the graph all
refer to things,
2. there is some way to interpret all the blank nodes in the graph as
referring to things,
3. the IRIs in property position refer to binary relationships,
4. and under these interpretations, each triple S P O in the graph
asserts that the thing referred to as S, and the thing referred to as O,
do in fact stand in the relationship referred to by P."

There is nothing in what Pat states above that's inconsistent with my
understanding of RDF as illustrated in my venn diagram. My diagram also
illustrates the basic point that you can produce Linked Data without
knowing anything about 1-4. Note, that doesn't in any way imply that the
result is either particularly useful or superior to RDF based Linked Data.

Now I remain crystal clear about the fact that we disagree about the
venn (which is consistent with our debate) what I need you to explain to
me (and possibly others) is how one *interprets* RDF without "reasoning"
and "inference" and by that I mean: how does a human or a user agent
(machine) makes sense (interpret) RDF based content without performing
any reasoning and inference?

Links:

1. http://bit.ly/16EVFVG  -- venn diagram illustrating how Identifiers
(IRIs), Linked Data, and RDF are related.

2. http://bit.ly/16v8fpR   -- tweaked version of TimBL's original WWW
proposal via the use of Linked Data URIs (the literal entity and
relations denotations have be turned into Linked Data URIs, so just on
them).

--

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
```

Received on Tuesday, 25 June 2013 11:42:09 UTC