On 06/19/2013 02:29 AM, エリクソン トーレ wrote:
My point was that even if the data producer doesn't know anything about
RDF, when applying the meme he will produce something that follows
the RDF abstract syntax. That is the strength of RDF and why I think
it is an intrinsic part of Linked Data.
+1
The data does not have to *look* like RDF to *be* (interpretable as)
RDF. But to support the goal of the Semantic Web, it is important
*specifically* that the data be interpretable as RDF.
As I pointed out before:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lod/2013Jun/0208.html
[[
> Why does RDF need to be the standard universal information
> model? not because it is perfect, but because *some*
> standard universal information model is needed, and that is
> the one that was chosen, just as URIs were chosen to be the
> standard universal identification convention. [ . . . ]
>
> why couldn't other sufficiently powerful information models
> achieve the same Semantic Web goal just as well, and be used
> in addition to RDF? Because that would fragment the web.
> instead of one web we would have many webs, each one its
> own walled garden, and that is not [the] Semantic Web goal.
> without a shared information model, client applications
> would not be able to meaningfully combine the data from
> those walled gardens.
]]
David
