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 18:30:21 -0400
Message-ID: <51B8F67D.3000209@dbooth.org>
To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
CC: public-rdf-comments@w3.org


On 06/12/2013 04:40 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> 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.

I do not see how it opens up an "RDF == JSON" trap door any more than it 
opens up a "JSON-LD = JSON" trapdoor.  Saying that "X is usable as Y" 
does not say that "X = Y".

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

Would "processable as idiomatic JSON-LD" and "processable as RDF" be 
better in your eyes?

David

>
> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 12 June 2013 22:30:48 UTC

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