I don't dislike Linked Stuff personally. I often say that URIs are
technology-neutral. Use URIs to identify things and it doesn't matter
tuppence whether you use RDF or something else since dereferencing a URI
can (and frequently does) return a choice of HTML, RDF/XML, Turtle,
JSON, XML or whatever people will be using in 20 years' time. David's
"linked stuff" definition matches that.
And, to return to the beginning of the conversation, Rufus has nodded
agreement at the idea of URIs being technology-neutral identifiers which
is encouraging.
On 11/06/2013 19:15, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
On 6/11/13 1:59 PM, David Booth wrote:
On 06/11/2013 12:18 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
On 6/11/13 11:56 AM, David Booth 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
RDF isn't the defining characteristic when speaking about Linked Data
outside the RDF community.
But RDF *is* one of Linked Data's defining characteristics, regardless
of whether people outside the RDF community understand that. (And it
seems to me that if they don't understand that, then we should help
them to understand that, rather than perpetuating their
misunderstanding.)
Of course its one of the defining characteristics. My point is that it
isn't the most important characteristic when speaking to folks outside
the RDF community when the subject matter is Linked Data.
This is the crux of the matter re. our disagreement. I don't see a need
to inject RDF into my conversations about Linked Data when my target
audience isn't interested in RDF or overtly suffers from R-D-F reflux.
It is much more palatable outside of the RDF
community to loosely couple Linked Data (the concept) and RDF (a
framework) which enables the construction of powerful Linked Data that's
endowed with *explicit* human and machine-comprehensible entity
relationships semantics.
We could define a new concept that decouples RDF from Linked Data.
We don't need to define a new concept. A concept exists, and it is
loosely coupled with RDF.
Linked Data (the concept) existed before RDF. Even in TimBL's mind it
clearly existed before RDF [1].
The original design of the Web includes a variety of relations, the most
important one being the "describes" relation. All of the relations were
denoted using links which became URI (a powerful abstraction mechanism
for a variety of data related endeavors).
-10000 for your "Linked Stuff" . Sorry!
Links:
1. http://www.nic.funet.fi/index/FUNET/history/internet/w3c/Image1.gif
-- that's a Linked Data way before any notion of R-D-F.
--
Phil Archer
W3C eGovernment
http://philarcher.org
+44 (0)7887 767755
@philarcher1
