Re: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment -- Sub-issue on the re-definition of Linked Data

I have re-read the first sections of the current editor's draft:
Overall, it is very good and needs very little change to fix the problem 
that it currently redefines the term "Linked Data" in a misleading way 
(by omitting "RDF").

This message makes a specific proposal for resolving this (sub-)issue 
about the redefinition of "Linked Data".  It attempts to achieve the 
dual objectives of: (a) avoiding the term "RDF" in the intro; and (b) 
not re-defining "Linked Data" in a misleading way.  It does this by 
removing the (re-)definition of Linked Data and instead including a 
reference to TimBL's Linked Data document.

Specific wording changes suggested:

1. Add TimBL's Linked Data document to the list of references, with a 
short name of [LINKED_DATA]:

2. In section 1 ("Introduction"), change the first occurrence of "Linked 
Data" in two ways: (a) change the font to be a plain, non-bold, 
non-italic font; and (b) add the citation "[LINKED_DATA]" after it.

3. Also in section 1 ("Introduction"), change:

   "In general, Linked Data has four properties: 1) it uses IRIs
   to name things; 2) it uses HTTP IRIs for those names; 3) the
   name IRIs, when dereferenced, provide more information about
   the thing; and 4) the data expresses links to data on other
   Web sites. These properties allow"


   "It allows"


Received on Sunday, 9 June 2013 21:28:39 UTC