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 14:09:54 -0400
Message-ID: <51B8B972.8050104@openlinksw.com>
To: public-rdf-comments@w3.org
On 6/12/13 2:04 PM, David Booth wrote:
> On 06/12/2013 01:27 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> [ . . . ]
>> 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
>
> -1
>
> "compatible with RDF" wrongly suggests that JSON-LD is *not* RDF.
>
> David
>
>
>
"..However, JSON-LD was also designed to be usable as RDF.."

What does that mean?

How is something usable as RDF?

Let's try this then:

   JSON-LD was designed to be usable by developers as idiomatic JSON,
   with no need to understand RDF [RDF11-CONCEPTS]. However, 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.

Change:

I removed "JSON-LD was also designed to be usable as RDF, so"

-- 

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 18:10:17 UTC

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