Moreover, my feed reader has both the SW and LD terms, and I’ve discovered that I miss a lot of relevant info if I just use LD and exclude SW.

“Semantic Web” doesn’t describe what it is, but how it does it, and how it does it is unfamiliar territory to most, including developers. That’s why it’s inscrutable from a layperson’s perspective. Describing the migration from document to data Web at least has a visual association.

BTW, this is a typical dilemma for a software subject, particularly such an ephemeral one. We do the best we can with examples and metaphors, and hope some people have the patience to ponder what we say.

I’m not disagreeing with you to be difficult, and certainly not to be fashionable. I’ve read what you said, and so far it hasn’t changed my views. Your comments imply that if I was approaching this objectively I would have done so, but surely the same would apply to you with respect to my comments. We just happen to differ in opinion, and that’s fine, a natural part of the discourse.

Re 1. You didn’t write this, it’s an impression I’ve formed, that you’re keen to align yourself with the “Semantic Web” label. Taking the historical view I’m curious about that, compared to other potential labels.

Re 2. Clearly I can’t judge this objectively, but my subjective experience tells me that starting from the term “Linked Data” offers less resistance to understanding than starting from “Semantic Web”.

Re 3. In my experience people find it hard to derive the desired meaning from the term Semantic Web, without receiving further explanation, even if they do break it down into constituent parts. If people are still conflating the Web and the Internet I do wonder what they make of “Semantic Web”, but if you’ve had more success that’s great.

Re 4. Greg, all I said was that I perceived something. If you don’t see the two as incompatible then that’s great – we agree on something at last

Re 5. A useful clarification, thanks.

I don’t think there’s anything to add regarding 6. Let’s agree to disagree and get on with building this Semantic Web and its associated applications, whatever definitions we choose. I might continue to disagree with you, but please rest assured it would be on the merits of the arguments rather than on any principle of disagreement. Thank you too for the discussion

Tom.

Pretty much agree 100% with you comment:

http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/rdf_semantic_web_apps.php#comment-112737

In fact some of it could have been written by me I often mention at work that the SW is pretty much at the same stage the web was back in the early/mid 90s. For me the linked data cloud is pretty much analagous with those directories of the web you could purchasse from all good book shops.

Given the definition of the SW I personally adhere to and understand a lot of current, so called, SW applications are not really SW. This does detract from them being good applications, just not SW applications.

Still the beauty of ontologies is we can agree to disgree. Shall I construct an OWL ontology defining a SW app?

I would, however, love to see more applications of RDF in a linked data stylee. There are a lot of us putting data up, there are ppl like you guys at Talis, Sindice, Zitgist and Virtuoso desiging some great tools/platforms…but it would probably be fair to say there are thus far no REALLy great RDF applications out there on the web. Fair comment?