On Jun 11, 2013, at 12:58, Hugh Glaser <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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!) It seems to me that those unnamed "Web developers" (I am a Web developer, but not of their opinion) who think that RDF is unnatural are solving a different and simpler problem than Linked Data or RDF developers. They rightly recognize that the RDF formats don't provide them any value when getting data from a *single source* for display within a browser. They are not trying to combine data from different silos. When you do that, Linked Data and RDF are a very natural way to go. Regards, Dave -- http://about.me/david_wood > > 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 >> > >
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
