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 23:29:08 +0800
To: "'Richard Cyganiak'" <richard@cyganiak.de>
Cc: "'Ivan Herman'" <ivan@w3.org>, "'RDF Comments'" <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>, "'Linked JSON'" <public-linked-json@w3.org>
Message-ID: <015701cd39c1$f9c12af0$ed4380d0$@lanthaler@gmx.net>
> Let me summarize what happened: Manu's initial request was about only
> the JSON-LD syntax spec. It didn't mention the JSON-LD API spec. The
> key parts of the JSON-LD syntax spec that mention RDF don't link to the
> JSON-LD API spec. It took questions from WG members until the existence
> of the JSON-LD API spec was pointed out. Being asked about the plans
> for the API spec, Manu stated that it's up in the air, and that it
> would likely not be submitted to RDF-WG. So basically his initial
> request was that RDF-WG push a non-RDF format through the W3C process,
> while leaving the mapping to and from RDF as future work. That just
> didn't make much sense, and is not a mere editorial issue. But I
> believe we've identified several possible ways forward that resolve
> this issue.

OK, thanks for explaining.


> I guess there are three options:
> 
> 1. Have the to/from-RDF algorithms in the syntax spec and take only the
> syntax spec to REC
> 2. Have them in a stand-alone document and take that document plus the
> syntax spec to REC
> 3. Leave them in the API spec and take API and syntax to REC
> 
> Manu has requested RDF-WG to proceed with 3.
> 
> Personally I'm a bit uncomfortable with 3 because the API spec is *big*
> and contains lots of stuff that doesn't seem to be immediately relevant
> to RDF-WG, and that seems to be well outside of what RDF-WG is
> chartered to do. (Our charter doesn't mention APIs, for example.) This
> may just be a case of me being uncomfortable because I don't understand
> JSON-LD and all its surrounding algorithms and APIs well enough.

OK, let's see what other people think. I would be fine with both 2) and 3)
but wouldn't like to see 1).


--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler
Received on Thursday, 24 May 2012 15:29:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 24 May 2012 15:29:46 GMT