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

Re: JSON-LD Requirements update

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2011 22:50:44 -0400
Message-ID: <4E3B5A84.60803@openlinksw.com>
To: public-linked-json@w3.org
On 8/4/11 5:19 PM, Gregg Kellogg wrote:
> I could replace "using the standards (RDF*, SPARQL)" with "...", or just be revisionist and remove it entirely.

Please remove it entirely.

A day will come when I hope everyone will understand why this must be 
removed from both this spec. Ditto undoing the regressive tweak to the 
initial meme.

> 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 statement opens an unnecessary can of worms. What's wrong with 
actually have some peace in the realm of Linked Data?

I thought we were done with this JSON-LD matter.

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

Then do that, you already actually have one. What's the problem?
> I'm open to suggestions.

Suggestion provided :-)

> Gregg
> 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.



Kingsley Idehen	
President&  CEO
OpenLink Software
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen

Received on Friday, 5 August 2011 02:51:07 UTC

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