- From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
- Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 12:02:04 +0200
- To: "'public-rdf-comments'" <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>
On Tuesday, June 11, 2013 9:08 AM, Pat Hayes wrote: [...] > But my main concern is not about how early the RDF connection is > spelled out, but that it does get stated clearly and unambiguously and > normatively in the specification document *somewhere*. This is after > all a *standards specification*, not a propaganda or advertising > effort. (Or a "for dummies" tutorial.) It needs to state the facts > clearly and unambiguously, and to clearly state the relationships to > other standards. To re-define the RDF data model, calling it by another > name, and not stating that it is a re-statement of the RDF abstract > graph syntax, is just wrong. It is *deliberately* misleading; it is in > fact a form of lying. We were asked by members of the RDF WG to add this section. In fact, Richard wrote most of it, I just completed it because he got busy otherwise. There why reason it is there, is because the data models are not exactly the same. JSON-LD allows bnodes for graph labels and predicates wheras RDF's data model does not. -- Markus Lanthaler @markuslanthale
Received on Tuesday, 11 June 2013 10:02:36 UTC