W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-comments@w3.org > May 2012

RE: JSON-LD Syntax request for FPWD via RDF WG

From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 17:47:16 +0800
To: "'Ivan Herman'" <ivan@w3.org>
Cc: "'RDF Comments'" <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>, "'Linked JSON'" <public-linked-json@w3.org>
Message-ID: <00a901cd3992$3729d7f0$a57d87d0$@lanthaler@gmx.net>
> Nevertheless... putting it this way the comparison of JSON-LD and RDFa,
> ie, JSON and HTML, is compelling and good. Which actually also
> reinforces the issue that came up yesterday on the call: after all, the
> RDFa spec goes into quite some details, as you well know:-), on how the
> RDFa content can be turned into RDF. That is an integral part of the
> RDFa spec and that we were looking for in the case of JSON.

Honestly, I didn't expect that such an editorial issue will cause so much
discussion. The content is there, the round-tripping is to and from RDF is
fully specified (and tested). We didn't want to submit the API spec yet as
there are still some minor issues with it and we also wanted to make sure to
have a number of interoperable implementations of the spec before publishing
it.

That being said, would it help if we would extract the to/from RDF stuff
from the API spec, rewrite according the RDF Concepts and publish that as a
separate document? I'm saying as a separate document because we targeted
JSON-LD to web developers without any RDF background.


> Which raises another point: would it be possible (certainly would be
> great!) to have a JSON-LD Primer as a WG Note, eventually?

Yes, we planned to write one..


--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler
Received on Thursday, 24 May 2012 09:47:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 24 May 2012 09:47:55 GMT