W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > August 2012

Re: JSON-LD terminology

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 15:30:36 +0100
Message-ID: <503E278C.4090000@epimorphics.com>
To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org


On 29/08/12 15:14, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> On 8/29/12 10:05 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>> The proposal for a reworded Linked Data definition is better.
>>
>>> Some of the data model differences require further discussion and
>>> need to be publicly aired, as they impinge on long-held resolutions
>>> in JSON-LD.
>>
>> Good to hear -
>>
>>
>> One specific point:
>>
>>> [[ 1. Linked Data is a set of documents, each containing a
>>> representation
>> of a linked data graph.
>> ...
>>> 8. IRIs used within a linked data graph SHOULD be dereferenceable to
>>> a Linked Data document describing the resource denoted by that IRI.
>>> ]]]
>>
>>
>> Test case: is foaf:name <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/name> an IRI
>> dereferenceable to a Linked Data document?
>
> See:
>
> 1.
> http://kingsley.idehen.net/describe/?url=http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/name
> -- It does resolve to content that describes the subject denoted by the IRI
>
> 2. http://bit.ly/SQOQvx -- same thing via vapor.

No quite.

"The following definition for Linked Data is the one that will be used 
for this specification. "

and this specification is JSON-LD.

So you haven't quite answered the question - does the text lead the 
reader to the conclusion that a non-JSON-LD document meets "a Linked 
Data document" given "Linked Data" defined in point 1.

(I hope "yes" but the doc read in context is not specific enough).

>
> [SNIP]
>
>>
>>     Andy
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 29 August 2012 14:31:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:02:06 UTC