On 1/13/11 6:43 AM, Nathan wrote:
The "data" part of "linked data" is not generic, machine accessible !=
machine understandable, and that's what this is all about.
"linked data" is not some term for data with links, it's an engineered
protocol which has constraints and requirements to make the whole
thing work.
Then it should be: Linked Structured Data :-)
Then we stimulate the following sense: machine readable data that's
defined and constrained by a schema.
We cannot build a web of data (machine understandable dereferencable
data) without these constraints.
Yes, but the moniker has to be clear enough to stimulate the right
senses. If "Structure" matters, it has to be part of the moniker,
otherwise, we have a grey area (which is the case today) that's best
resolved via transformation handled on the client side inline, with its
particular "senses" etc..
--
Regards,
Kingsley Idehen
President& CEO
OpenLink Software
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
