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

On 06/25/2013 11:14 AM, Ted Thibodeau Jr wrote:
> On Jun 25, 2013, at 12:19 AM, David Booth wrote:
>> The problem is that some people are claiming that RDF is not a
>> *necessary* component of Linked Data.
> Let me try this --
> Is *SPARQL* a *necessary* component of Linked Data?
> In other words, must I put up a SPARQL processor/server, in order to
> put some Linked Data on the Web?
> If not, if SPARQL is indeed optional, then why is RDF (which is not
> raised above SPARQL in the TimBL scripture currently being pointed
> to) mandatory?

Didn't I already answer that?
TimBl's design issue memes are not dictums to be blindly
followed.  They offer *insights* that must be *understood*.
They are *brilliant* insights if they are understood, but
they are also terse, sloppily written, full of typos, and
dependent on a lot on context to understand.  Thus they are
easily misunderstood as well.

. . .

AFAIK *nobody* on this list has claimed that SPARQL is a
required element of Linked Data, even though it may be a
*common* element.

*Think* about it.  Can the goals of the Semantic Web be achieved
without SPARQL?  Certainly.  Can they be achieved without RDF?
Not without re-architecting the Semantic Web, because without a
standard universal data model, we would have walled gardens of
data that a client application could not meaningfully combine.


Received on Tuesday, 25 June 2013 17:42:34 UTC