W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-linked-json@w3.org > January 2012

RE: FYI: Interesting dicussion over at rest-discuss

From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 11:36:59 +0800
To: "'Gregg Kellogg'" <gregg@kellogg-assoc.com>, "'Kingsley Idehen'" <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Cc: <public-linked-json@w3.org>
Message-ID: <00c301ccd012$49dc8800$dd959800$@lanthaler@gmx.net>
Great work as always Gregg. I've updated the introduction a bit further so
that RDF is now mentioned the first time in Advanced Concepts.

Another thing that might help is to change the terminology slightly. We
currently use subject, predicate, and object which is RDF speak and might
confuse some people. We could mitigate that by talking about nodes which
have properties whose values might be other nodes or a literal value. See
also ISSUE-47 which I've created some time ago.


--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler




> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gregg Kellogg [mailto:gregg@kellogg-assoc.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 4:34 AM
> To: Kingsley Idehen
> Cc: public-linked-json@w3.org
> Subject: Re: FYI: Interesting dicussion over at rest-discuss
> 
> Thanks for noticing this. I'm preparing the specs to be time-stamped
> later today, as there's been quite a bit of change since the last
> version was announced. I went through the syntax document and remove
> quite a few references to RDF, really trying to leave that to the API
> document. Of course, there is some reference to formats such as RDFa,
> Microformats and microdata, but this seems relevant to the desired
> audience.
> 
> The only other real mention is in the advanced-concepts section on
> prefixes, and even there only to reference the CURIE definition.
> 
> I really don't want people to get hung up on the ability to use JSON-LD
> for RDF, but focus on JSON-LD as an end in itself. If you might take
> another pass.
> 
> Moving the Linked Data section to an appendix might also help the
> readability, I've also done that.
> 
> Gregg
> 
> On Jan 10, 2012, at 10:14 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> 
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
Received on Wednesday, 11 January 2012 03:37:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:36 GMT