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: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 23:37:51 +0100
Message-ID: <51B8F83F.7080003@webr3.org>
To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
CC: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, public-rdf-comments@w3.org
David Booth wrote:
> 
> 
> 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?

RDF compatible?
Received on Wednesday, 12 June 2013 22:38:53 UTC

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