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

Re: JSON-LD Requirements update

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2011 13:19:35 -0400
Message-ID: <4E3C2627.2080806@openlinksw.com>
To: public-linked-json@w3.org
On 8/5/11 11:16 AM, Gregg Kellogg wrote:
> Kingsley, I'm not trying to be controversial; I just wanted feedback from the group on how to deal with a quote that contained something we didn't want; message received! I've updated the spec to remove the offensive phrase.

Great!

I would characterize the phrase as "offensive" though. Its just an 
unnecessary distraction re. JSON-LD and Linked Data in general.

One of the great things I see coming out of JSON-LD is a palpable 
demonstration of why Linked Data and RDF shouldn't be conflated. Of 
course, they are related :-)


Kingsley
> Gregg
>
> On Aug 4, 2011, at 7:50 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>
>> 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 :-)
>>
>> Kingsley
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> -- 
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Kingsley Idehen	
>> President&   CEO
>> OpenLink Software
>> Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
>> Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
>> Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>


-- 

Regards,

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 17:19:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:35 GMT