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: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 12:48:55 +0200
To: "'public-rdf-comments'" <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>
Message-ID: <007a01ce6823$9a8785c0$cf969140$@lanthaler@gmx.net>
On Wednesday, June 12, 2013 3:16 PM, David Booth wrote:
> On 06/12/2013 04:16 AM, Markus Lanthaler wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 12, 2013 7:09 AM, Pat Hayes wrote:
> >> On Jun 11, 2013, at 7:02 PM, Markus Lanthaler wrote:
> >>> So, you are raising a new point then. You want the data model
> section to
> > be
> >>> replaced with a statement saying that JSON-LD serializes the
> "RDF['s
> > data]
> >>> model with two generalizations" citing terHorst for the
> >>> "bnodes-for-predicates generalization".
> >>
> >> No doubt that would not fly, so I will not attempt it. But how about
> >> adding a sentence something like this to appendix A, end of first
> >> paragraph:
> >>
> >> "These definitions correspond closely, both in terminology and in
> >> general structure, to the abstract syntax of RDF datasets and RDF
> >> graphs."
> >
> > I would certainly be fine with this. I would also suggest to append
> the
> > following sentence to your proposal
> >
> >    Complete details of how JSON-LD relates to RDF are in
> >    C. Relationship to RDF.
> >
> > If no one objects, I will go ahead and implement these changes.
> 
> +1

Added:
https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/commit/42d4b43a4e5651c702f61f3e18fdd1
85a2c0103d


--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler
Received on Thursday, 13 June 2013 10:49:28 UTC

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