- From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 12:16:27 +0100
- To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On 31/08/12 12:05, Kingsley Idehen wrote: > On 8/31/12 5:20 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote: >> >> >> On 31/08/12 10:02, Markus Lanthaler wrote: >> >>> Would you, and the other members of the RDF WG, be fine with just >>> dropping >>> the sentence "In particular, any document based on an RDF serialization >>> format is a Linked Data document"? >> >> Not really. I think it's an important, including for JSON-LD which >> has the "toRDF" function. RDF is the data model. >> >> The statement does not say that only RDF is linked data. > > Andy, > > RDF and Linked Data are not the same thing. The statement "In particular, any document based on an RDF serialization format is a Linked Data document" only claims the one way relationship set of RDF serializations subset of Linked Data documents and not about whether a linked data document is RDF. No owl:sameAs is implied. In the context of JSON-LD, which defines a function to go from application/ld+json to RDF, it makes sense to point out that it is part of that system. > There isn't an owl:sameAs > relationship between these two entities. To push this overtly or > covertly serves no beneficial purpose. We don't need confusion obscuring > the virtues of either. > > In the context of Linked Data It should be made very clear that RDF is: > > 1. an option > 2. an implementation detail. I think the proposed text is not at odds with (1). Andy
Received on Friday, 31 August 2012 11:16:59 UTC