On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 16:19, stuart yeates <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I'm guessing that Roy meant linked data in the sense of
> and

I'm pretty sure he did, too. I guess I was trying to smoke out his
reasoning for choosing "linked data" as the only worthwhile semantic
web technology. Let me clarify, and have a look at this ;

Linked data is the bottom four boxes out of a total of 12 (13 if you
count the top one), where the ones missing is things like Trust,
Proof, Logic, Querying, Ontologies and Taxonomies, all things that I
thought it was evident belonged at the core of what library science is
all about. It simply astounds me the lack of understanding from the
library world on these things, so sad to see that these things aren't
linked up; you *are* what these things are about! Sure, linked data is
easier; that's why everyone is doing it, have been doing it for years.
But you're missing out in fields that should be second-nature to you.


 Project Wrangler, SOA, Information Alchemist, UX, RESTafarian, Topic Maps
--- ----------------------------------------------
------------------ ---