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 21:26:21 +0100
Message-ID: <4E08E76D.6060308@openlinksw.com>
To: "David I. Lehn" <dil@lehn.org>
CC: public-linked-json@w3.org
On 6/27/11 6:41 PM, David I. Lehn wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 12:52 PM, Kingsley Idehen
> <kidehen@openlinksw.com>  wrote:
>> The day we separate RDF and the basic concept of Linked Data is the day
>> rapid adoption resumes.
> "RDF" vs "Linked Data" with a bias against RDF has come up in many of
> your posts.

Please, what do you mean by "bias against RDF" ? That's utterly false, 
and if you don't know that to be the case, please provide an example.

>   Could you please explain your view on the differences and
> why you are against RDF?

Can you please tell me why they are the same thing? My position about 
this is very easy to find starting from my blog data space (see my email 

BTW - I desperately nope you've done some background research re. who I 
am, and my personal experience with RDF. Put mildly, I am behind a hell 
of a lot of actual RDF based solutions that actual tackle real world 
problems and accentuate RDF's virtues. I haven't decided that RDF and 
Linked Data need separation due to excess time on my hands.

>   I'm having trouble understanding your issues
> with JSON-LD and I think some clarification of concepts and
> terminology might help.  Thanks.

I don't have an issue with JSON-LD per se. I am asking for its purpose 
to be crystal clear. I am also hinting at how it could achieve uptake, 
assuming that's the goal behind the project etc..

> -dave



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 20:27:06 UTC

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