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 18:48:27 -0400
Message-ID: <51B8FABB.5030804@openlinksw.com>
To: public-rdf-comments@w3.org
On 6/12/13 6:37 PM, Nathan wrote:
> 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?
>
>
>
I also suggest that earlier in the thread :-)

-- 

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 22:48:49 UTC

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