RE: First mention of RDF - IMPORTANT ISSUE

Tom,

I like your wording, particularly "provides data" and "such as" because
they accommodate different perspectives that can ultimately still be
mapped back to RDF (e.g. SPARQL, OWL, and even schema.org's notation).

Jeff

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-xg-lld-request@w3.org [mailto:public-xg-lld-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Tom Baker
> Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 4:22 PM
> To: public-xg-lld
> Subject: First mention of RDF - IMPORTANT ISSUE
> 
> A point that had escaped me when reading the sections separately and
> out of
> sequential order: The first mention of RDF currently comes in the
> Benefits
> section, where it is mentioned in a way that assumes it has been
> introduced
> earlier.
> 
> Where to introduce RDF?  The logical place is in the Scope.  In Scope,
> we
> currently cite the TimBL's principles [1], and those principles say
> that where
> links are relationships anchors in hypertext documents written in
HTML,
> for
> data they are links between arbitrary things described by RDF (and
> further
> down: "When someone looks up a URI, provide useful information, using
> the
> standards (RDF, SPARQL)").  As in the diff [2], I propose:
> 
>     Linked Data uses Web addresses (URIs) as globally unique
> identifiers for
>     dataset items, elements, and value concepts -- analogously to the
> library
>     world's identifiers for authority control -- and provides data
> using
>     standards such as the Resource Description Framework (RDF).
> 
> I hesitate between "such as the Resource Description Framework" and
> other
> possible wordings, e.g., "based on" or the stronger "using RDF", but
> this could
> potentially create confusion re: references to OWL.  It has been
argued
> on our
> lists that Linked Data does not require RDF, but we have grounded our
> usage in
> [1] so I think it helps to make this clear.
> 
> Tom
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html
> [2]
>
http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/index.php?title=Scope&diff=60
> 52&oldid=6048
>

Received on Thursday, 1 September 2011 20:53:12 UTC