W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-comments@w3.org > June 2013

Re: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment

From: Bo Ferri <zazi@smiy.org>
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2013 21:05:43 +0200
Message-ID: <51B22F07.4010608@smiy.org>
To: public-rdf-comments@w3.org
Hi all,

(comments inline)

On 6/7/2013 1:55 AM, David Booth wrote:
>> Hopefully it is clear that the decision to leave "based on RDF" out of
>> the Linked Data definition was thoroughly and carefully considered. In
>> the end, the group decided not to tie RDF and Linked Data together
>> because it would be conflating a data publishing concept (Linked Data)
>> with an abstract data model (RDF).
>>
>> In the end, the group decided against tightly coupling Linked Data and
>> RDF because:
>>
>> 1. It would conflate two different concepts.
>
> It is extremely misleading to suggest that tightly coupling Linked Data
> and RDF "conflates" two different concepts, when the fact is that Linked
> Data -- in the established sense of the term -- is *based* on RDF.
>
> It is clear from reading the JSON-LD group's discussion log
> http://json-ld.org/minutes/2011-07-04/#topic-3
> that the group wanted to avoid reference to RDF, and hence -- exceeding
> its authority -- the group invented a new definition for "Linked Data"
> to suit this purpose.  Some individuals even appear to have convinced
> themselves that this new definition is the *real* definition of the
> term!  It is not.
>
> The term "Linked Data" has a well-established meaning within semantic
> web community.  The JSON-LD group would be *misleading* the public by
> stating or implying that Linked Data is not necessarily based on RDF.
>

To be honest who really cares about the minority the semantic web 
community is right now? The majority wants an easy to adaptable and 
understandable format that is ready to use in a few steps (JSON-LD is 
nearly simple plain old JSON and that's why often ready to use with 
JavaScript - the dominant web programming language nowadays). So no long 
description about the background and relationships at a first glance. 
Only the minority of the adopters will probably grasp (or be interested 
in) the whole dimension of what it probably means to use JSON-LD for 
describing their things.

>> 2. It is the groups experience that Web developers have an aversion to
>> RDF as a complex technology due to RDF/XML and other technologies that
>> do not represent the current RDF world. It doesn't matter if these
>> aversions are based on reality - the aversion exists, so we try to
>> downplay RDF as much as possible in the JSON-LD spec.
>
> I agree with the goal of keeping it simple for Web developers, but I
> think the downplaying has gone to the point of hiding it, and that is
> harmful.  If developers' view of RDF is going to change, they need to
> know that it *is* RDF that they are using when they use JSON-LD.  If
> they see how easy it is to use JSON-LD, it will stand on its own merits,
> even if it does say "RDF inside".  To my mind, the goal should not be to
> *hide* the fact that it is JSON-LD is RDF, but to make JSON-LD 100%
> usable by those who do not wish to learn anything *else* about RDF --
> i.e., anything beyond what they learn in the JSON-LD spec.

When viewing back in history we all know the problems RDF and Semantic 
Web had and still has. So why not using the spirit of the moment JSON-LD 
spreads to the Web*?

Cheers,


Bo


PS: as we also already know the Semantic Web is just one milestone of 
implementing the vision of the Web as it was written down by TimBL in 
1989 ;)
Received on Friday, 7 June 2013 19:06:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:29:57 UTC