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

Re: The tone of the "JSON-LD vs. RDF" debate (was re: Sub-issue on the re-definition of Linked Data)

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 07:43:01 -0400
Message-ID: <51B70D45.7090807@openlinksw.com>
To: public-rdf-comments@w3.org
On 6/11/13 3:08 AM, Pat Hayes wrote:
> If the third is a serious problem (which I doubt) then it is one that we are going to have to live with in the short term and which will go away by itself in time. The first two can be handled by deft editorial wording and quick reassurances, along the lines of "No knowledge of the RDF spec documents is necessary in order to use JSON-LD."
>
> 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. (Seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_with_the_truth.)  And that is just not acceptable in a W3C Recommendation, IMO, no matter how well-intentioned the motives are for doing it.
Pat,

I agree with what you express above, and for the record, I've never 
thought it should be approached any other way. As I stated in 
yesterday's post, I have never observed you conflate RDF and Linked 
Data. The challenge boils down to separation of components, deft 
language, and for others to understand (on a serious note now) that 
nothing good comes out of conflating RDF and Linked Data. These items 
have demonstrable individual merit that's easily appreciate when they 
are loosely coupled.

Loose coupling of RDF and Linked Data provides pathways to the following:

1. Demystifying what RDF actually is.
2. Understanding how HTTP URIs (when used in conjunction with RDF) 
enables the construction of webby (or web-like) structured data endowed 
with *explicit* relations semantics (discernible to humans and machines).
3. Demonstrating how a variety of document content types enable creation 
and sharing of structured data endowed with the same relation semantics.

The broad adoption of the LOD cloud effort is all about messaging that 
focuses on the items above. This is what various governments, 
businesses, and individuals ultimately come to appreciate whenever they 
are lucky enough to get around the confusing narratives that have 
historically surrounded RDF.

Beyond the LOD cloud and the adoptions mentioned above, there are other 
areas where we need traction e.g., *detailed* case studies that 
demonstrate how RDF has improved individual and/or enterprise agility, 
based on items 1-3 above. Of course, I will make my contributions via 
OpenLink Software, as has been the case for several years now.

-- 

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 Tuesday, 11 June 2013 11:43:25 UTC

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