On 6/14/13 1:44 PM, Luca Matteis wrote:
There's actually no real-world implication of having a single unique definition for Linked Data.
I agree. We just need a clear understanding of what Linked Data is about.
The Web works quite successfully, and still each one of us probably holds a different definition of it. For me it's CSS+HTML+HTTP. For others it's HTTP+HTML+JavaScript. For others it's probably just HTTP, or even something else?It doesn't matter. The Web works, and having a single unique definition of it won't change anything.
For context, I am not expressing the opinion that we need a single definition per se., I believe we need an understanding that embraces all of the Web's core attributes. Examples that come to mind include:
1. loose coupling of technology 2. tolerance 3. dexterity 4. organic evolution5. "just do it!" mindset -- don't ask for permission to contribute to the innovation continuum.
Demonstrations of Linked Data solving real problems (to me) has always been the key to ultimately determining how people come to understand what Linked Data actually is etc..
Sarven's post does hone into an important issue here re., lack of dog-fooding when it comes to Linked Data and the broader Semantic Web. If we don't actually use what we propose to others then ultimately our own lack of conviction will stifle the progress we seek.
Kingsley
On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 7:31 PM, Kingsley Idehen <kide...@openlinksw.com <mailto:kide...@openlinksw.com>> wrote:On 6/14/13 4:36 AM, Sarven Capadisli wrote: "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 +1--Regards, Kingsley Idehen Founder & CEO OpenLink Software Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen <http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/%7Ekidehen> Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
-- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Founder & CEO OpenLink Software Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
