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: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 13:27:16 -0400
Message-ID: <51B8AF74.2010709@openlinksw.com>
To: public-rdf-comments@w3.org
On 6/12/13 1:13 PM, David Booth wrote:
> On 06/12/2013 10:50 AM, Pat Hayes wrote:
>>
>> On Jun 12, 2013, at 3:12 AM, Markus Lanthaler wrote:
>
>>> This is what we ended up ending to the spec:
>>>
>>>   JSON-LD was designed to be usable by developers as idiomatic JSON,
>>>   with no need to understand RDF [RDF11-CONCEPTS]. However, JSON-LD
>>>   was also designed to be usable as RDF, so people intending to use
>>>   JSON-LD with RDF tools will find it can be used like any other
>>>   RDF syntax. Complete details of how JSON-LD relates to RDF are in
>>>   C. Relationship to RDF.
>
> +1
>
> Nicely phrased!
>
> David
>
>
>
Markus,

A little tweak, for consideration.

JSON-LD was designed to be usable by developers as idiomatic JSON,
with no need to understand RDF [RDF11-CONCEPTS]. However, JSON-LD
was also designed to be RDF compatible, so people intending to use
JSON-LD with RDF tools will find it can be used like any other
RDF syntax. Complete details of how JSON-LD relates to RDF are in
C. Relationship to RDF.

My change:

re-wording "usable as RDF" without elongating the paragraph.



-- 

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 Wednesday, 12 June 2013 17:27:39 UTC

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