On 06/13/2013 07:19 PM, David Booth wrote:
[Sidebar: A term of art is "A word or phrase that has special meaning in a particular context". (The Free Dictionary)]A heated debate has been raging about the accepted meaning of the term "Linked Data" in the context of the Semantic Web community -- whether or not this term implies the use of RDF. Since this depends on people's perceptions of the term's meaning, rather than an official definition, a simple poll has been created to settle this debate quantitatively. The poll asks: In normal usage within the Semantic Web community, does the term "Linked Data" imply the use of RDF? PLEASE VOTE NOW at http://goo.gl/cbyQd VOTING RULES 1. One vote per person. Persons with multiple email addresses are prohibited from voting more than once. 2. To prevent ballot stuffing, only votes from those who have **previously posted a message** on a public W3C email list (*before* 13-Jun-2013) will be counted. The W3C email search form will be used to ensure compliance: http://goo.gl/aqtGW 3. To ensure that votes are counted correctly (and to detect forged ballots), all votes will be verified and listed publicly at http://goo.gl/PXhRG Results of this poll may be viewed at http://goo.gl/GMeom (NOTE: The "View all responses" link on that page is auto-generated and cannot be disabled. Unfortunately it links to the *editable* version of the response list, which should not be shared, so please do not request it. The link above at #3 shows the same list in read-only mode.) Thank you, David Booth P.S. Please restrict follow-up discussion about this poll to public-lod@w3.org
Hi David,As others already pointed out, I also don't think that the results of this survey will come as a surprise even if we assume for the moment that it is sound. However, that should not deter us from creating an improved one. IMO, as soon as some context is built into to survey e.g., implication of Linked Data within Semantic Web, it pretty much leads to a binary answer.
I would propose a different approach to the community: "Explain Linked Data to me like I'm 5"Gather the answers, classify etc. The definition that's perceived by the community may not necessarily be "this" or "that" regardless of the recent discussions.
Aside: Personally I think this discussion is important as long as there is a visible outcome for the better. It hits a pet-peeve of mine and others. For instance, if we go with the strict SemWeb, RDF and friends view of "Linked Data", the public-lod and semantic-web mailing lists are practically hijacked with announcements that requests research paper submissions to be in PDF. Apparently the community is cool with the idea that as long as the calls are made by gatherings with "Semantic Web" or "Linked Data" in their title, they can have a go with whatever is suitable for them. What this tells me is that, on one hand some (majority?) of the SW/LD community loves to side with the most recent definition of TimBL's DesignIssues/LinkedData, on another they are willing to cut corners and look the other way when it truly comes to eating their own dogfood.
So, can anyone explain to me what is the real-world implication of having the definition one way or another especially when the SW/LD community has a difficulty getting its act together to stick to those "guidelines"?
-Sarven
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
