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

Re: JSON-LD requirements

From: glenn mcdonald <glenn@furia.com>
Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2011 15:15:10 +0000
Message-ID: <CAHNbrUs0pxKuHag4ry_dAcGfj_ea1jObj9_7_=UmUu2acBZnBA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@kellogg-assoc.com>
Cc: Linked JSON <public-linked-json@w3.org>
Well, I object to all 11 of your Linked Data "requirements" in one way or
another, before you even get to the JSON-LD derivations. I think they
represent a very particular RDF-centric implementation of an idea that can
and should be much simpler, and I'm with Kingsley in wanting to see the term
"Linked Data" separated from the RDF mechanics. As we've said before, the
question is what we're trying to accomplish here:

- serialize RDF in JSON for the benefit of people who already understand RDF
but don't like the existing serializations for some reason

or

- encourage wider use of un-deconstructed graph representations of data by
providing a simple serialization standard that takes advantage of JSON
familiarity to reach a much larger audience of people who are motivated
primarily by their own data and needs and don't necessarily yet even
consciously think about graphs, much less understand RDF

I don't see the point of the former, so if that's what this "community"
devolves into, I'll just unsubscribe. The latter, on the other hand, seems
to me like a hugely valuable and important step that the *data* community
should be trying to take.
Received on Sunday, 3 July 2011 15:15:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:34 GMT