- From: Joshua Lieberman <jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com>
- Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 17:49:57 -0400
- To: Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu>
- Cc: Simon.Cox@csiro.au, frans.knibbe@geodan.nl, public-sdw-comments@w3.org, rob@metalinkage.com.au, jeremy.tandy@gmail.com, eparsons@google.com
My point was only that they are separable in a different way. Even if one assumes / uses RDF, many of the issues of going from data URI to data URL are still unresolved. The mere existence of a hypermedia format doesn’t resolve them either. -Josh > On Aug 5, 2015, at 5:46 PM, Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu> wrote: > > hello simon. > > On 2015-08-05 14:34 , Simon.Cox@csiro.au wrote: >> Yes - there is an unfortunate conflation. No question that when it comes to more formal semantics, RDF and OWL based systems are the go-to option, particularly on the web. But Linked Data does not depend on RDF and it is unfortunate that some folk slide into that assumption all too easily and often, and it would be better if they didn't. That was exactly the point I was trying to make at the beginning of this thread. > > i violently agree, but that train has left the station. by now you would need to very explicitly say "linked data that is not limited to only using RDF". and you would get into heated arguments every single time, because there are quite a number of people that want to see the term exclusively used for RDF. i got tired of those arguments, and still believe that the main value is in the linking, not the metamodel of what what you're linking. hence my "web data" proposal that explicitly is only about hypermedia, and not about one specific metamodel. > > cheers, > > dret. > > -- > erik wilde | mailto:dret@berkeley.edu - tel:+1-510-2061079 | > | UC Berkeley - School of Information (ISchool) | > | http://dret.net/netdret http://twitter.com/dret | >
Received on Wednesday, 5 August 2015 21:50:28 UTC