Hugh Glaser wrote: > Wow Nathan, that's an interesting set of reactions - we could go off and > discuss them, but I will give my 3 cents on the original question. > > I too have difficulty with customers on the "Open" word. > Open can mean a few things, and some of the posters here seem to interpret > it to mean open standards. > My interpretation has been that the data is open; as it says at the start of > the project page [1]: > "The Open Data Movement aims at making data freely available to everyone ... > The goal of the W3C SWEO Linking Open Data community project is to extend > the Web with a data commons by publishing various open data sets as RDF on > the Web and by setting RDF links between data items from different data > sources." > So it is Linking Open Data, not something like Open Linked Data. > So personally I have used Linked Data quite a lot, sometimes as Linked Data > Technologies. > I take it to mean the same thing as Linking Open Data, but where the data is > not necessarily open - this is important for a customer that wants to use > the (whole) technology stack, but does not want to make their data open. > "Open" can really freak people out > I avoid Semantic Web, as that is often received as primarily doing AI. > More recently I have also badged as Web of Data; don't know if Michael > started it, but you do see it around. Sort of a good capture of the ideas. > I also talk about an application using the Unbounded Web of Data, if it > actually goes out and fetches RDF on finding links. > Finally, if I am pushed to use Semantic Web (ie that is what they come > with), I always say I work in Semantic Web Technologies. > As someone who works on the software, it can be very useful to append > technologies to whatever phrase I use:- otherwise the assumption is that the > work is primarily concerned with building ontologies or transforming > datasets, rather than infrastructure development. > > I don't think that either Linked Data (Technologies) or Web of Data > addresses your problems that customers think they already have it in Web > Services; I usually talk about moving from point to point vocabularies > towards widely agreed vocabularies at that stage, and through to unbounded. > > Best > Hugh > > [1] > http://esw.w3.org/topic/SweoIG/TaskForces/CommunityProjects/LinkingOpenData# > head-277d7f68544ce1a9e252f5c0080b6402cd983a49 > [2] http://www.webofdata.info/ > [3] http://webofdata.wordpress.com/
Ahh ty, I can see Web of Data, and Linked Data Technologies both being thrown in to a conversation when discussing Linked Data in broad strokes. Also it had slipped my mind till now but there's always the Giant Global Graph reference too - Web of Data seems to set the tone and paint the ideal mental picture for further communications though (ie makes sense to me)! Regards
