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 16:40:40 -0400
Message-ID: <51B8DCC8.1000807@openlinksw.com>
To: public-rdf-comments@w3.org
On 6/12/13 4:27 PM, David Booth wrote:
>
>
> 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.
When you align RDF and JSON in the manner outlined above,  you open up 
the RDF == JSON trap door. As far as I know, RDF != JSON.

A simple paragraph devoid of ambiguity will do. Right now, I am stumped 
at "usable as RDF" which is at best ambiguous.

Kingsley
>
> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>


-- 

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 20:41:03 UTC

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