> Replacing the terms "semantics" with some kind of "data" just seems an > inaccurate description of what this is about.
In my opinion, "semantics" should only be used when we wish to discuss "the relation between signifiers, such as words, phrases, signs, and symbols, and what they stand for". But... > What the 4 projects have in common is the use of technologies (notably RDF) > Agreed. I'd be OK with calling it RDF track, for example. ... the use of technologies ... that allow linking entities other than > data, for example persons or abstract ideas. Exactly! For this reason, we called our upcoming ISWC workshop Web of Linked Entities: http://wole2012.eurecom.fr/ (btw: We wouldn't mind if ApacheCon had a homonymous workshop.) The problem with "semantics" is that it has been repeatedly misunderstood and abused. For many people that have been around these topics for a while, it is just cacophonous. For many people that are new to the field, it can be scary. Unless you have positive things to say about the term, why should we insist in using it? Cheers, Pablo On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 3:15 PM, Iavor Jelev <[email protected]>wrote: > Meant "Web of Data" of course :) > > Am 20.06.2012 14:12, schrieb Iavor Jelev: > > > >> > >> "semantic web" scares regular developers away as complicated > >> rule-based reasoning systems and hide the goodness of simple stuff > >> such as JSON-LD, RDFa Lite, reusable data vocabularies such as > >> schema.org and friends. > >> > >> +1 for "Web of Data". > >> > > > > agreed! +1 for "Web of Date" from me too. > > > > kind regards, > > Iavor > >
