I think you prove my point as to why people steer clear of RDF.
Jonathan Eisenzopf

Jonathan Eisenzopf,

I agree with the fact that RDF is mired in confusion. Thus, let’s try to bring clarity to this important matter via this discussion thread, or at least make a contribution to said endeavor :)

RDF is an Abstract Language. As a Language, it uses a combination of signs, syntax, and semantics to encode and decode information (data in some context). In a nutshell, it is simply an open standard for creating digital sentences using a variety (rather than single) notation.

In regards to the notion of a Semantic Web, you simply construct RDF sentences/statements where hyperlinks (HTTP URIs) are used to identify the subject, predicate, and object (optionally) of a sentence i.e., using Linked Data principles (which is simply about naming things using hyperlinks and describing things using subject->predicate->object or entity->attribute->value sentences).

Unbeknownst to many, the Web has been a Semantic Web since inception. By that I mean: HTML enabled every publisher to unambiguously identify a document using a hyperlink and at the very least indicate it was related to some other page (also unambiguously identified by a hyperlink).

Here an example of what’s stated above via a collection of RDF sentences (using RDF-Turtle notation):


<#thisPage> a schema:WebPage .

<#thisPage> xhv:related <#someOtherPage> . 

Using a Semantic Web browser extension, here is a visualization of the sentences above.

Visualizing a based RDF Language sentence constructed in this post using RDF-Notation via Nanotation

Note, if you install the extension, the exploring the full power of RDF and the notion of a Semantic Web will be reduced to a single click :)

The problem for RDF is basically not having tools built for in on the client side due to the initial complexity of writing portable browser extensions.


One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.