On 1/10/12 9:55 AM, Markus Lanthaler wrote: >> It's the narrative itself, the problem is that from the Semantic Web >> and >> W3C side of things an EAV based directed graph that leverages URIs == >> RDF. Thus, even when speaking of the aforementioned model (no syntax in >> mind) they say: RDF. The biggest problem is that when people outside of >> the Semantic Web and W3C encounter the letters R-D-F they triangulate >> straight to the RDF/XML and all of its problems. >> >> It's a nightmare, to put things mildly :-( > Maybe moving the theoretical Linked Data definition [1] towards the end of > the spec and describing the data model based on object oriented programming > where pointers are IRIs would help to improve the situation slightly. What > do you think? > > > [1] http://www.json-ld.org/spec/latest/json-ld-syntax/#linked-data > > > -- > Markus Lanthaler > @markuslanthaler > > > > > > Markus, Linked Data isn't the problem, good effort was put into ensuring the Linked Data == RDF misinformation didn't overshadow JSON-LD. As per usual, the problem is more complex. Proof: 1. open up the json-ld spec page (your URL above) 2. CTRL-F to perform a search and count of occurrences for pattern: RDF, you get 67 ! Look at the opening paragraph. "RDF" has colonized the blurb-space of this spec, in a nutshell. It's the effects of said colonization that leads people outside the Semantic Web and Linked Data communities to these frustrating conclusions that you've encountered :-( -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Founder& CEO OpenLink Software Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:36 GMT