- From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2013 14:45:35 -0400
- To: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
- CC: "'Sven R. Kunze'" <sven.kunze@informatik.tu-chemnitz.de>, 'public-rdf-comments' <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>
On 06/08/2013 02:30 PM, Markus Lanthaler wrote:
> On Saturday, June 08, 2013 5:13 PM, Sven R. Kunze wrote:
[ . . . ]
>> Would adding your CLEAR statement ("JSON-LD is a concrete syntax of
>> RDF.") to the part "relationship" or even in the intro as the first
>> line as e.g. turtle does do any harm?
>
> You didn't read the intro, but already there we say
>
> Developers that require any of the facilities listed above or
> need to serialize an RDF graph or dataset [RDF11-CONCEPTS] in
> a JSON-based syntax will find JSON-LD of interest.
>
> IMHO that's crystal clear.
But clarity needs to be assessed in the eyes of the *readers* -- not the
authors. Obviously it is *not* clear to readers, as you've heard
substantially similar comments on this point from both Sven and from me.
Telling readers that they "will find JSON-LD of interest" is nowhere
near as clear as explicitly saying that "JSON-LD is a concrete syntax of
RDF" or "JSON-LD is a serialization format for RDF".
David
Received on Saturday, 8 June 2013 18:46:02 UTC