On 6/20/13 12:49 PM, Luca Matteis wrote:
Kingsley, nothing you just said in reply to my statement has to do with the *definition* of Linked Data, which is what I was discussing.

It's not really productive to "quote" people's statements, and answer with something entirely unrelated.

I understand what RDF is and what it allows you to do (the two points you made), but going back to the definition, why do top sites mention specifically RDF when describing Linked Data?

Because people talk about Linked Data and RDF together. That doesn't in imply that you MUST know RDF to create and publish Linked Data -- which remains my fundamental point.

Google search results aren't a topic of interest or debate to me. I don't want to open up that can of worms.

Kingsley


On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 6:27 PM, Kingsley Idehen <kide...@openlinksw.com <mailto:kide...@openlinksw.com>> wrote:

    On 6/20/13 11:45 AM, Luca Matteis wrote:
    On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Melvin Carvalho
    <melvincarva...@gmail.com <mailto:melvincarva...@gmail.com>> wrote:

      # Restate/reflect ideas that in other posts that are
        troubling/puzzling and ask for confirmation or clarification.


    I am simply confused with the idea brought forward by Kingsley
    that RDF is *not* part of the definition of Linked Data. The
    evidence shows the contrary: the top sites that define Linked
    Data, such as Wikipedia, Linkeddata.org and Tim-BL's meme
    specifically mention RDF, for example:

    "It builds upon standard Web technologies such as HTTP, RDF and
    URIs" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linked_data
    "connecting pieces of data, information, and knowledge on the
    Semantic Web using URIs and RDF." - http://linkeddata.org/

    This is *the only thing* that I'm discussing here. Nothing else.
    The current *definition* of Linked Data.

    Here's what I am saying, again:

    1. You can create and publish web-like structured data without any
    knowledge of RDF .

    2. You can create and publish web-like data that's enhanced with
    human- and machine-comprehensible entity relationship semantics
    when you add RDF to the mix.

    Venn diagram based Illustration of my point: http://bit.ly/16EVFVG .

    If you want your Linked Data to be interpretable by machine, then
    you can achieve that goal via RDF based Linked Data and
    applications equipped with RDF processing capability.

    RDF entity relationship semantics are *explicit* whereas
    run-of-the-mill entity relationship model based entity
    relationship semantics are *implicit*.

    RDF is the W3C's recommended framework for increasing the semantic
    fidelity of relations that constitute the World Wide Web.

    It isn't really that complicated.

    RDF can be talked about usefully without inadvertently creating an
    eternally distracting Reality Distortion Field, laden with
    indefensible ambiguity.

--
    Regards,

    Kingsley Idehen     
    Founder & CEO
    OpenLink Software
    Company Web:http://www.openlinksw.com
    Personal Weblog:http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen  
<http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/%7Ekidehen>
    Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
    Google+ Profile:https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
    LinkedIn Profile:http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen







--

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen 
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen




Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Reply via email to