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 16:27:24 -0400
Message-ID: <51B8D9AC.3030001@dbooth.org>
To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
CC: public-rdf-comments@w3.org


On 06/12/2013 04:10 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> On 6/12/13 3:04 PM, David Booth wrote:
>>
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> David,
>
> Your position is understood re., the minuses. Thus, I would kindly ask
> you to let others digest what I've outlined below so that they can
> figure out how to fix the concerns outlined. The rest of this mail
> simply puts things together so that others don't have to crawl through a
> growing thread.
>
>
> Original:
>
> 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.
>
> Concern:
>
> What does "usable as RDF" mean? Bearing in mind that RDF is a framework
> i.e., the Resource Description Framework.
>
> I suspect it could mean that JSON-LD can be used as a Resource
> Description Framework?

Would it be clearer if that sentence were phrased in the exact same way 
that the first sentence is phrased?  "JSON-LD was also designed to be 
usable by developers as idiomatic RDF, so . . . ."

>
> My suggested alternative wording, assuming the goal isn't to state that
> JSON-LD can be used as a Resource Description Framework:

But the point of that sentence is to be clear that JSON-LD can be used 
as RDF, just as it can be used as JSON.

David

>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 12 June 2013 20:27:51 UTC

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