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

Re: Yet another serialization format?

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 17:52:36 +0100
Message-ID: <4E08B554.3090206@openlinksw.com>
To: public-linked-json@w3.org
On 6/27/11 3:28 PM, Markus Lanthaler wrote:
> Is it thus really necessary to change all those representations to comply to
> a yet-to-define specification? Wouldn't it be more sensible to create a
> specification which allows to describe those existing representations and to
> transform those to a graph of linked data? This would lead to a clear
> upgrade path for existing systems without breaking all of its clients. In
> the approach I'm talking about, the semantics/links would be added as a
> layer on top of the current data (separation of concerns).

I would say the goal is to establish how one expresses a basic (or even 
low fidelity) Linked Data graph using JSON. This basic approach would 
enable higher fidelity graphs using syntaxes by those that: 1) need it 
2) know how to do it e.g., via RDF.

The day we separate RDF and the basic concept of Linked Data is the day 
rapid adoption resumes. Right now, we are burning too much time on 
naunces and inadvertent (but inherent) confusion from RDF.



Kingsley Idehen	
President&  CEO
OpenLink Software
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
Received on Monday, 27 June 2011 16:53:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:53:17 UTC