- From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
- Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 18:44:06 +0200
- To: <semantic-web@w3.org>
On Tuesday, June 18, 2013 3:33 PM, David Booth wrote: > On 06/18/2013 05:58 AM, Norman Gray wrote: > > I've given a couple of lectures on 'the semantic web and linked data' > > to librarians/archivists/museum people. They're interested^Wobsessed > > by structured information, but largely uninterested in technology as > > such. They rather glaze when I talk about RDF and ontologies, but > > they _get_ Linked Data when I phrase it as 'the linked data web is > > the web for machines; it has the same good/bad/pragmatic > > sociotechnical features as the human-readable web, but because it's > > all RDF rather than all HTML, the machines can follow their noses > > just like we can on the human-readable web'. > > > > Phrased like that, or something like it, they can imagine its use in > > their practice, and why it's important. > > Yes! I could not agree more, except for one point. The reason this > debate arose was because a W3C technical specification -- the JSON-LD > spec -- was proposing to include a *definition* of Linked Data. And > that is very different than trying to convey a rough idea of Linked > Data to a non-technical audience. Just for the record. We didn't try to include a *definition* - or at least that was not the intention. We paraphrased the Linked Data principles in the non-normative introduction. That's all.. Anyway, with David's help we now agreed on an alternative text which we all are equally (un)happy. -- Markus Lanthaler @markuslanthaler
Received on Tuesday, 18 June 2013 16:44:37 UTC