Re: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment

On 06/08/2013 04:27 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> On 6/8/13 2:27 PM, David Booth wrote:
>> Yes. We are arguing about the attempt to re-defined the notion of
>> Linked Data to not be based on RDF.
> You can seriously make that inaccurate claim after reading the original
> meme
> <http://web.archive.org/web/20061201121454/http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html>
> ?

Please re-read that document *entirely* -- not selectively.  As I 
already pointed out:
[[
 > Because unless one were intentionally exercising selective
 > understanding, I do not see how anyone could honestly
 > misread it so badly as to not realize that it is specifically
 > talking about RDF and the Semantic Web, making reference to
 > the way the HTML-based web works, and showing that the same
 > principles of linking and dereferencing are needed for RDF
 > and the Semantic Web.  The very first paragraph says:
 > [[
 > The Semantic Web isn't just about putting data on the web. It
 > is about making links, so that a person or machine can explore
 > the web of data.  With linked data, when you have some of it,
 > you can find other, related, data.
 > ]]
 >
 > And the second paragraph explicitly says: "for data they
 > links  between arbitrary things described by RDF".  I don't
 > know how he could have said it more clearly.
 >
 > Claiming that that document in any way supports the notion
 > that Linked Data is not based on RDF would be disingenuous
 > to the point of being fraudulent.
]]

>
> Linked Data took off without an RDF specificity.

That is complete nonsense.  You seem to be talking about the generic 
concept of linking information.  That is not what we are discussing 
here.  We are talking about Linked Data in the sense that TimBL defined 
the term.

>
> Linked Data is something you can produce, in highly useful form, via
> RDF. That doesn't make it a subset of RDF. Sorry, but that's utter
> nonsense!

Again, you seem to be talking about the generic concept of linking 
information.  That is not what we are discussing here.

David

Received on Sunday, 9 June 2013 21:23:56 UTC