- From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2014 16:25:25 -0400
- To: public-vocabs@w3.org
- Message-ID: <538CDDB5.3050703@openlinksw.com>
On 6/2/14 3:53 PM, Lloyd Fassett wrote: > It's a really interesting question to me. I get the feeling that > Schema.org is for publishing for search engines. Linked Data on the > other hand is more capable of enabling more interaction and re-use of > data between different applications. > > Linked Data could enable a stand alone application as well, where it > wouldn't make sense to do that with Schema.org. > > Is that about right? Long story short, they are complimentary i.e., mutually inclusive :-) Kingsley > > Thanks, > > Lloyd Fassett > Azteria, Inc. > Bend, OR > > Lloyd Fassett > Azteria Inc. > Bend, OR > (541) 848-2440 (PST) > > > On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 8:32 AM, Kingsley Idehen > <kidehen@openlinksw.com <mailto:kidehen@openlinksw.com>> wrote: > > On 6/2/14 9:40 AM, Dan Brickley wrote: > > When TimBL originally wrote > http://www.w3.org/designissues/linkeddata.html it was largely a > response to the indirect linking model we'd been using in the FOAF > project. > > > Dan, > > I wouldn't say using HTTP URIs for unambiguous denotation of > entities was a response to FOAF. It just so happened that FOAF > provided a nice anecdote [1] for making the point. It's hard to > explain why "You" need an HTTP URI that denotes "You" > unambiguously if there's nothing in place to support and > demonstrate the utility of a common practice in the real-world > that's simply being exploitable via the Web medium. > > As you know, unambiguous HTTP URI based entity denotation dates > back to the very notion of a World Wide Web (on Paper and inside > TimBL's head) [2][3] :-) > > How all of this got lost I will never know, but I do challenge > anyone to image the real-world without: > > 1. words -- that denoted things unambiguously > 2. terms -- that denoted things unambiguously > 3. sentences comprised of ambiguous words > 4. statements comprised of ambiguous terms. > > If RDF had been promoted (from the onset) as a Language rather > than a Format (specifically RDF/XML) we wouldn't still be > deliberating these matters circa., 2014. > > Links: > > [1] http://bit.ly/1tBFW2Q -- Get Yourself a URI post by TimBL > > [2] http://bit.ly/1aNuWca -- original WWW proposal (this couldn't > include live HTTP URIs since the Web was at the proposal stage) > > [3] http://bit.ly/10Y9FL1 -- original WWW proposal embellished > with live HTTP URIs that denote entities. > > > -- > > Regards, > > Kingsley Idehen > Founder & CEO > OpenLink Software > Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com > Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen > <http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/%7Ekidehen> > Twitter Profile: https://twitter.com/kidehen > Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about > LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen > > > > > > -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Founder & CEO OpenLink Software Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter Profile: https://twitter.com/kidehen Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
Attachments
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Received on Monday, 2 June 2014 20:25:48 UTC