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: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 15:04:12 -0400
Message-ID: <51B8C62C.3000501@dbooth.org>
To: public-rdf-comments@w3.org


On 06/12/2013 02:09 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> 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"

-1

That makes it unclear that JSON-LD is RDF.

David
Received on Wednesday, 12 June 2013 19:04:39 UTC

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