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

Re: Potential Formal Object from DERI over JSON-LD

From: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 07:20:36 -0400
Message-Id: <6671CD18-ABC9-44FA-8322-06741FBD95FD@3roundstones.com>
Cc: RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
To: Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>
Hi Michael and all,

You may recall that the WG resolved to publish two of the JSON-LD docs (not all four), starting with FPWD at [1].

It would seem that your specific concerns regard marketing, not technology.  Manu has already committed to "put a section on RDF in the spec" [2].  I'm sure that he can adjust the wording if needed, but threatening a formal objection on non-technical grounds seems counterproductive.  Instead, can you please suggest some alternative wording for the spec?  Thanks.

Regards,
Dave

[1] http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2012-07-11#resolution_1
[2] http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2012-06-20#line0268


On Oct 18, 2012, at 4:57, Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org> wrote:

> 
> Thank you, Manu - you beat me to it ;)
> 
> Just to clarify: this is not about the quality or the amount of work that went into JSON-LD. Neither do I want to discuss its usefulness. I acknowledge that there are use cases where JSON-LD certainly serves well.
> 
> ## Why, oh why?
> 
> We're faced with a situation ATM that the JSON-LD proponents talk with two different groups: on the one hand us here in the WG and on the other hand to potential adopters such as Drupal or WikiData. Towards the former group the  JSON-LD proponents keep maintaining that JSON-LD is in fact an RDF serialization. Towards the latter stake holders, the  JSON-LD proponents claim that JSON-LD has nothing to do with RDF.
> 
> You can't have the cake and eat it.
> 
> 
> ## Options
> 
> Now, to break it down, I see two options:
> 
> 1. JSON-LD is indeed considered as an official RDF serialization by the  JSON-LD proponents. Then, JSON-LD has to follow the RDF model 100% - no more exceptions, no new terms, etc.
> 2. JSON-LD is not considered as an official RDF serialization by the  JSON-LD proponents, in which case I propose to stop continuing on the REC track in the RDF WG, effective immediately.
> 
> Again, it is unfortunate that this surfaces so late in the process but I was observing the JSON-LD development (in RDF WG land and outside) for a while now and was sort of - admittedly naïvely - hoping it would sort out by itself.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
>       Michael
> 
> --
> Dr. Michael Hausenblas, Research Fellow
> DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute
> NUIG - National University of Ireland, Galway
> Ireland, Europe
> Tel.: +353 91 495730
> http://mhausenblas.info/
> 
> On 17 Oct 2012, at 20:18, Manu Sporny wrote:
> 
>> Michael Hausenblas wrote:
>>> (with my DERI AC rep and RDF WG member hat on) I will strongly
>>> advise the [RDF] WG to abandon REC track for JSON-LD.
>> 
>> The rest of the conversation is here:
>> 
>> https://plus.google.com/u/0/102497386507936526460/posts/KCVJVLNZKNb?cfem=1
>> 
>> Bringing it to the groups attention so we're not blind-sided by it
>> during FTF3, LC or CR.
>> 
>> -- manu
>> 
>> -- 
>> Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
>> President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
>> blog: HTML5 and RDFa 1.1
>> http://manu.sporny.org/2012/html5-and-rdfa/
>> 
> 
> 
Received on Thursday, 18 October 2012 11:21:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:52 GMT