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

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

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2013 16:39:51 -0400
Message-ID: <51B39697.5080705@openlinksw.com>
To: public-rdf-comments@w3.org
On 6/8/13 2:45 PM, David Booth wrote:
> 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
>
>
>
JSON-LD can be used to produce Linked Data. It can leverage RDF as a 
mechanism for increasing the semantic fidelity of the Relations in the 
Linked Data produced.

RDF cannot be all things to all scenarios. That's the darn problem with 
the narratives around RDF that have utterly obscured its comprehension 
and appreciation over the years.

RDF is extremely useful. It can stand on its own merits. It doesn't need 
to add Linked Data to that bucket too.

JSON-LD is also very useful, it too can stand on its own merits as a 
mechanism for producing Linked Data that's palatable to JSON developers 
while also enabling exploitation of RDF's virtues.

The Web works because its components are loosely coupled.

RDF has struggled over the years because positions like yours are 
completely antithetical to what makes the Web work.

The Web was semantically interlinked from day one, and there was no RDF 
on day one.

Without Links there is no Web. On the Web a Link denotes a Relation.

When Links denote Relations you have a Semantic Web, even if the 
granularity of the semantics are coarse rather than fine-grained to the 
perceptive prowess of humans and/or machines.

The RDF narrative doesn't have to be so warped to the point of being 
ridiculed at every turn by folks who know far less, but have much deeper 
pockets and alternative ideas about what the Web is all about.

If TimBL meant Linked Data to be a subset of RDF, rather than something 
you can produce using RDF, don't you think he would know exactly how to 
make that point?  He wouldn't need you or I to tell him how to pen such 
a meme, note, or set of guidelines.

-- 

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 Saturday, 8 June 2013 20:40:14 UTC

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