- From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 13:01:32 -0400
- To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <5081876C.3000303@openlinksw.com>
On 10/19/12 10:43 AM, Manu Sporny wrote: >> There should be many more occurrences of "RDF" than "linked data". > Number of times 'RDF' is mentioned in the spec: 59 > Number of times 'linked data' is mentioned : 30 > > Although, this is a bad metric for any spec, imho. > Bad metric for something called JSON-LD. Acceptable metric for something called JSON-RDF+LD or something like that. "Big Elephant in the room" is still the fact that we instinctively conflate RDF (data model, structured data representation, URI based entity denotation, and *explicit* entity relationship semantics) and Linked Data (data model, structured data representation, *de-referencable* URI based entity denotation, and *implicit* or *explicit* entity relationship semantics). All we have to do is get terminology right modulo politically induced insecurities re. RDF. Once again, RDF and Linked Data are loosely coupled and individually useful. Once you conflate them everything falls apart and both suffer. The Web succeeds because it has loose coupling at its core. Deviate from the essence of the Web's loosely coupled architecture and it all falls apart, predictably. -- 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
Attachments
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Received on Friday, 19 October 2012 17:01:55 UTC