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

Re: JSON-LD terminology

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 12:16:27 +0100
Message-ID: <50409D0B.8080001@epimorphics.com>
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

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