On 6/18/13 1:01 AM, David Booth wrote:
On 06/18/2013 12:05 AM, ProjectParadigm-ICT-Program wrote:The debate about whether linked data requires RDF is actually a typical example of a wrong formulation in the applicable logic formats in reasoning resulting from the imperfection of natural language.The formal definition of the semantic web and its component layers and constituent tools like RDF is but one way of linking data.That completely misses the point of this debate. The debate is not about whether there are other ways of linking data. It is about the meaning of the term "Linked Data" **as a term of art**. It is often capitalized as Linked Data to emphasize that it has special meaning (as a term of art) beyond just "data that is linked".David
That's inaccurate. I use the phrase Linked Data a lot. Yes, I do it with special meaning in mind, but that wasn't (or isn't) about RDF. That's all about the fundamental principles of web-like structured data representation as outlined in TimBL's original meme. I (and others ) do know how to add RDF to the mix when communicating this way i.e., RDF based Linked Data.
Now please don't tell me that Linked Data is a W3C "term of art" please don't go there.
-- 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
