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

Re: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment -- Sub-issue on the re-definition of Linked Data

From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2013 20:15:00 -0400
Message-ID: <51B51A84.1010308@dbooth.org>
To: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
CC: 'public-rdf-comments' <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>
Hi Markus,

On 06/09/2013 07:16 PM, Markus Lanthaler wrote:
> On Sunday, June 09, 2013 11:28 PM, David Booth wrote:
>> Specific wording changes suggested:
>>
>> 1. Add TimBL's Linked Data document to the list of references, with
>> a short name of [LINKED_DATA]:
>> http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html
>>
>> 2. In section 1 ("Introduction"), change the first occurrence of
>> "Linked Data" in two ways: (a) change the font to be a plain,
>> non-bold, non-italic font; and (b) add the citation "[LINKED_DATA]"
>> after it.
>
> As Gregg already explained the formatting is due to internal
> cross-references. Why is that important?

Because it reads as a (misleading) definition.  (And in fact the 
formatting macro specifies it as a definition!)  If it is going to read 
like a definition it needs to be complete and correct.

>
>
>> 3. Also in section 1 ("Introduction"), change:
>>
>> "In general, Linked Data has four properties: 1) it uses IRIs to
>> name things; 2) it uses HTTP IRIs for those names; 3) the name
>> IRIs, when dereferenced, provide more information about the thing;
>> and 4) the data expresses links to data on other Web sites. These
>> properties allow"
>>
>> to:
>>
>> "It allows"
>
> I don't think it is very wise to require readers to read an external
> document (which is still a draft btw.) in the very first sentence.

I considered that, but I don't think it does.  The second paragraph of 
the intro says:
[[
JSON-LD is a lightweight syntax to serialize Linked Data in JSON 
[RFC4627]. Its design allows existing JSON to be transformed to Linked 
Data with minimal changes. JSON-LD is primarily intended to be a way to 
use Linked Data in Web-based programming environments, to build 
interoperable Web services, and to store Linked Data in JSON-based 
storage engines.
]]

Thus, if the purpose of JSON-LD is to serialize Linked Data in JSON, 
then for the most part, the reader can be presumed to already know about 
Linked Data.  Otherwise the reader would not have had a reason to use 
JSON-LD.  There will be exceptions of course, but those who are setting 
out to use JSON-LD without knowing about Linked Data can certainly 
follow the reference or do a web search to learn about it.

> Thus I would be against this change. I think adding a reference as
> you suggest is very reasonable and makes it clear that we are just
> quickly describing the concept here.
>
> So, would you be satisfied if we would add the reference but not
> remove the description?

Not unless RDF is added to the description.  The problem is that it 
reads as a definition.  This is specifically why I proposed deleting the 
portions of the description that say *how* Linked Data works, leaving 
only the portions that describe its purpose and effect: to ensure that 
it does not sound like a definition.

Thanks,
David
Received on Monday, 10 June 2013 00:15:27 UTC

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