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

Re: LinkedData != RDF ?

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 14:56:26 +0200
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=WeP=ybynJBu6+TBU=TUfJpRqdjg@mail.gmail.com>
To: William Waites <ww@styx.org>
Cc: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@kellogg-assoc.com>, Linked JSON <public-linked-json@w3.org>
On 20 May 2011 14:31, William Waites <ww@styx.org> wrote:
> * [2011-05-19 16:37:07 -0400] Gregg Kellogg <gregg@kellogg-assoc.com> écrit:
>
> ] * The model should be based on the notion of graphs, similar to RDF, but
> ] where the semantics are more Class/Object based, rather than predicate
> ] based. (i.e., I define a class definition with specific properties and
> ] class inheritance/implements more similar to Ruby/Python, rather then
> ] being predicate based.
>
> I'm not sure this is such a good idea.

Me neither. RDF takes control away from schemas, allowing multiple
schemas to be mixed-in when describing some object, without need for
permission, anticipation or coordination from the original schema
writers. And when that results in too many namespaces at instance
level, you can always create an indirection schema that defines
subclasses/subproperties of common terms so that instance data can use
a single flat namespace instead. Seems easier than throwing away the
base level and starting from scratch...

Dan
Received on Friday, 20 May 2011 12:56:54 GMT

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