- From: Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu>
- Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2015 15:55:33 -0700
- To: janowicz@ucsb.edu, public-sdw-comments@w3.org
hello krzysztof. On 2015-08-05 15:20 , Krzysztof Janowicz wrote: > This was intensively discussed on the Linked Data list about two years > ago (https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lod/2013Jun/). While > you could envision Linked Data that is not RDF-based, it is difficult to > do so -- especially for 5-star data. not really, no. it's just matter of definition. the definition was made that it must be RDF, so now it must be RDF. case closed. > I certainly agree with what you are > saying but trying to untangle this would be a nightmare and I am not > sure what the value proposition would be. to me the value proposition would be to explain to people that you can be properly webby without having to subscribe to one specific metamodel world. many people *want* to be webby (and are looking for guidance), and not all of them want to use RDF. that's just the reality out there. > Clearly, the entire Web of > Data does not need to be (and is not) RDF-based but I do not know of any > Linked Data that is not RDF-based. that's a tautology. there are vast amounts of linked data (small caps, generic term) out there. just ask the library community, for example, or many many others that have designed and used decentralized networked data. but if you refuse to call those Linked Data (specific term, RDF only), then of course it doesn't exist. just go get back to the topic: i don't think best practices should prescribe technologies. i think best practices should promote patterns. hypermedia (or call it REST) is *the* pattern of the web, so it would be good to see it being promoted. 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 22:56:02 UTC