Re: JSON Emergency Brake

On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 4:25 PM, Thomas Steiner <tomac@google.com> wrote:

> Dear all,(*)
>
> ===
> TL;DR: in my humble opinion, we should not continue with RDF/JSON, but
> fully focus on JSON-LD even if it might take longer, as JSON-LD feels
> like  JSON, whereas RDF/JSON feels like RDF in a JSON camouflage.
> ===
>
>
First of all, thanks Thomas for saying this early. My position is that I am
agnostic on which JSON format is standardised through the WG because I think
they solve different problems to one another. They both have valid use
cases, just quite separate ones.

I joined the WG to edit the JSON document because the WG had decided they
wanted to base it on the Talis spec which I had a lot of familiarity with.
I'm happy to proceed as the WG directs but it's worth saying early that I
don't think I would be a good editor for a JSON-LD based spec.

Ian
-- 
Ian Davis, Chief Technology Officer, Talis Group Ltd.
http://www.talis.com/ | Registered in England and Wales as 5382297