W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-comments@w3.org > June 2013

RE: editorial

From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 12:58:45 +0200
To: "'public-rdf-comments Comments'" <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>
Message-ID: <009e01ce6824$fa69c470$ef3d4d50$@lanthaler@gmx.net>
On Wednesday, June 12, 2013 7:20 PM, David Wood wrote:
> On Jun 12, 2013, at 11:11, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> wrote:
> 
> >
> > On Jun 12, 2013, at 5:59 AM, David Wood wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Pat,
> >>
> >> Thanks for your careful review.  Do you think these concerns could
> be addressed in a minimal way by a reference to the RDF Primer in the
> introduction?
> >
> > Yes for me, but I recognize that the extreme RDF-phobia which Manu
> describes might mean they would not want to force readers to actually
> read any RDF documents. So a brief intuitive account of the "JSON-DL
> data model" would also do. It could just be a couple of sentences
> saying that the data model assumes that data is in the form of a graph
> of nodes using IRIs and some other stuff.
> >
> >> That would seem to help introduce the terms and, after all, JSON-LD
> is a product of the RDF WG.  That approach might also serve to quiet
> the other discussions you mentioned.
> >
> > Well, lets just let that die quietly. I think the JSON editors have
> leaned over backwards to accommodate our RDF bristles, so I dont want
> to press that point any more.
> 
> That's fine with me.  Over to you, Manu, Markus and Greg.  You seem to
> be on the right track, IMO.

OK, keeping track of it here:
https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/issues/263


--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler




Received on Thursday, 13 June 2013 10:59:19 UTC

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