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

Re: Property-name scoping

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 11:34:03 +0100
Message-ID: <4E0C511B.6020204@openlinksw.com>
To: public-linked-json@w3.org
On 6/30/11 11:21 AM, Patrick Logan wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 10:32 PM, Kingsley Idehen
> <kidehen@openlinksw.com>  wrote:
>> Why do you think RDF in anyway has a monopoly over semantics? Why do you
>> think that an EAV/SPO triple serialized in a non RDF format somehow loses
>> fidelity? Do you think RDFS and OWL semantics cannot be expressed in any
>> other form outside RDF's family of syntaxes?
> I never intended to imply RDF has a monopoly over semantics. The set
> of RDF-related specs just have a widely adopted semantics I am
> interested in. I am unaware of other specifications as widely adopted.

So we are back to the question of whether: JSON-LD is about a solution 
for those who are happy with RDF? If it is, then what's wrong with the 
existing RDF/JSON syntax from Talis?

We can't escape the fundamental questions:

1. what is JSON-LD?
2. why is it important?
3. who is it aimed at?
4. how will the target audience use it?

> I am only interested in syntaxes as far as they are related to these
> semantic specifications. If other syntactic and semantic
> specifications are made known to me that are as useful for me, I will
> consider those at such a time.

See comment above.
>


-- 

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 Thursday, 30 June 2011 10:34:39 GMT

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