W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-linked-json@w3.org > August 2011

Re: JSON-LD Requirements update

From: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@kellogg-assoc.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 17:19:07 -0400
To: "nathan@webr3.org" <nathan@webr3.org>
CC: Alexandre Passant <alex@seevl.net>, "public-linked-json@w3.org JSON" <public-linked-json@w3.org>
Message-ID: <F59B2FBE-77FE-4F42-AEA7-396CB036E614@kellogg-assoc.com>
I could replace "using the standards (RDF*, SPARQL)" with "...", or just be revisionist and remove it entirely. This is a statement about Linked Data from Tim, not about JSON-LD. Certainly, in our context, it doesn't (necessarily) relate to RDF.

The alternative would be to just coin our own definition of Linked Data and not cite any references, or cite something else.

I'm open to suggestions.


On Aug 4, 2011, at 1:52 PM, Nathan wrote:

> Alexandre Passant wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 9:09 PM, Gregg Kellogg <gregg@kellogg-assoc.com> wrote:
>>> I made another pass at the Requirements document [1]. Easiest way to get a diff with previous is the CTRL-SHIFT-ALT-S key sequence. Note that I updated the Linked Data definition based on TBL's  note, which does include "using the standards (RDF*, SPARQL)". As it's a citation, I didn't think it appropriate to remove this, but I'm open to suggestions on how to include the citation without limiting it to RDF & SPARQL.
>> You could add, from the same documents: "I'll refer to the steps above
>> as rules, but they are expectations of behavior.  Breaking them does
>> not destroy anything"
> That'll do! :)
> side note.. it's worth remembering as well that JSON-LD isn't RDF or 
> SPARQL, so anybody who read the spec and took the line to be a literal 
> strict limitation would then have to abandon JSON-LD itself.
> Which would be weird.
Received on Thursday, 4 August 2011 21:20:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:53:18 UTC