Re: JSON-LD terminology

On 8/31/12 9:45 AM, Gregg Kellogg wrote:
>> >Not disputing any of that. My issue is that none of the above justifies conflating RDF and Linked Data.
> What if we amend the sentence as follows: n particular, any document based on an RDF serialization format*using dereferencable IRIs*  is a Linked Data document.
>
> Gregg
>
Yes-ish.

That's a little better and *nearly* reconcilable back to TimBL's meme, 
RDF specs and concept guides etc.. It nearly loosely couples RDF and 
Linked Data.

Here's what isn't addressed:

How de-reference delivers explicit or implicit indirection that 
associates and entity name with its description document. Basically, you 
can have an RDF document, deferencable URIs used in the graph based 
content, and still not have Linked Data.

As stated earlier, you can articulate the fact that the W3C recommends 
use of the RDF data model and its various syntaxes and serialization 
formats for constructing Linked Data documents published to the Web. 
This makes the binding is loose i.e., you can read the RDF specs and 
TimBL's Linked Data meme separately without mistaking them for the same 
thing, which they simply aren't.

My concern is always about statements that overtly or covertly conflate 
RDF and Linked Data. Such statements are eternally problematic.


-- 

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