On 06/25/2013 11:14 AM, Ted Thibodeau Jr wrote:
On Jun 25, 2013, at 12:19 AM, David Booth wrote:
The problem is that some people are claiming that RDF is not a
*necessary* component of Linked Data.
Let me try this --
Is *SPARQL* a *necessary* component of Linked Data?
In other words, must I put up a SPARQL processor/server, in order to
put some Linked Data on the Web?
If not, if SPARQL is indeed optional, then why is RDF (which is not
raised above SPARQL in the TimBL scripture currently being pointed
to) mandatory?
Didn't I already answer that?
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lod/2013Jun/0416.html
[[
TimBl's design issue memes are not dictums to be blindly
followed. They offer *insights* that must be *understood*.
They are *brilliant* insights if they are understood, but
they are also terse, sloppily written, full of typos, and
dependent on a lot on context to understand. Thus they are
easily misunderstood as well.
. . .
AFAIK *nobody* on this list has claimed that SPARQL is a
required element of Linked Data, even though it may be a
*common* element.
*Think* about it. Can the goals of the Semantic Web be achieved
without SPARQL? Certainly. Can they be achieved without RDF?
Not without re-architecting the Semantic Web, because without a
standard universal data model, we would have walled gardens of
data that a client application could not meaningfully combine.
]]
David
