Nicely put, David. I have heard people going the other way and disconnecting them, however. That is, suggesting that Linked Data does not need to be RDF, which I do find confuses people (and me!)
On 11 Jun 2013, at 16:56, David Booth <[email protected]> wrote: > On 06/11/2013 10:59 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote: >> [ . . . ] many RDF advocates >> want to conflate Linked Data and RDF. This is technically wrong, and >> marketing wise -- an utter disaster. > > I have not heard RDF advocates conflating Linked Data and RDF, but maybe you > talk to different RDF advocates than me. > > AFAICT, the vast majority of RDF advocates know that Linked Data is RDF in > which URIs are deferenceable to more RDF, but RDF is not necessarily Linked > Data, because RDF itself does not require URIs to be dereferenceable. > > David >
